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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: access keys are returned as names only, never the key values, and sign-in identities are withheld. Those are privacy behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the most important fact (privacy/who may open) leads. It is a noun-phrase list without a governing verb, which slightly slows an agent scanning for what the tool does.

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 usefully doubles as return-value documentation by naming each field returned. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage on the one parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the read/write counterpart is unstated.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The app id from list_apps'), so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about appId, which is the expected baseline at full coverage.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool reveals about an app's access configuration: privacy setting, who may open it, webhook paths, access key names, and sign-in counts. That is a specific resource with specific fields, though it never explicitly names the counterpart mutation tool (set_app_access) or opens with a clear verb.

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?

Usage is only implied by the content list. The closing clause 'Who they were is in the console, not here' sets a useful scope boundary on what this tool will not answer, but there is no explicit when-to-use or pointer to set_app_access for changing these settings.

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