Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful semantics by explaining that idle_since means no allowed call within the project's idle_days and that anomaly-guard settings are included. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or result size, which is the remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the usage advice, and no filler. The field enumeration is dense but each item conveys real information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description's field inventory is doing necessary work and covers the important derived value (idle_since). Only minor details like result ordering or volume are left unstated, which is not enough to impede correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (admin_key format and handling, project_id origin), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds nothing about either parameter, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific resource (the project's apps) and enumerates the returned attributes (allowed calls, limits, state, idle_since, anomaly-guard settings), which lets an agent distinguish it from gate_list_members or gate_list_actions. The verb 'list' is only implied by the title rather than stated, but the noun phrase is unambiguous in context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives two concrete usage contexts: locating an app id for the app tools, and finding a retired app to pass to gate_revoke_app. That routes the agent well, though it stops short of stating when this listing is unnecessary (e.g., when the app id is already known).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.