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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the remote's view of apps (bundle id and display name) and the non-obvious tvOS 27 failure mode where the remote's own launch call reports success but silently does nothing.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing and front-loaded: what it lists, the preferred alternative, and the launch caveat. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming what is returned (bundle id and display name). Combined with clear alternative routing and the tvOS 27 caveat, an agent has everything needed 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?

Only one parameter (udid) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as 'Apple TV UDID or name'. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies; the parenthetical about bundle id/display name describes return values, not the input.

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 and resource ('List the apps installed on an Apple TV') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling ios_list_apps, clarifying it returns what the remote can address rather than the fuller host-side view. An agent can pick between the two 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?

Explicitly names two alternatives with their selection conditions: use ios_list_apps unless you want what the remote can address, and use ios_launch_app to foreground an app. Both when-to-use and when-not are covered.

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