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

Goes well beyond the read-only annotations by disclosing that enabled:false means the address 404s and no tool re-enables it, that app source files cannot be read back, and that a disabled workspace answers 403 hosted_apps_disabled with no in-tool remedy (escalate to support). These are exactly the behavioral traps an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and scannable; the return fields and failure modes are ordered sensibly. It runs slightly long, and the 'keep the source' aside is tangential for a pure list operation.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract itself (slug, name, url, board_token, enabled) and covers prerequisites and failure behavior, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the sole `organization` parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or edge-case meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (hosted apps of a workspace) and defines what an app is: a small public web app showing one board, deployed with deploy_app. An agent can distinguish this from deploy_app/delete_app without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context: it lists apps produced by deploy_app and names the prerequisite (hosted apps enabled for the workspace) plus the failure mode if not. It stops short of explicitly routing to delete_app or naming when not to call it, but for a listing tool the usage context is unambiguous.

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