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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are ordered 'newest first', the bundle fields returned (release, dist, map count, debug ids, size) are disclosed, and pagination is signalled ('Pages with cursor').

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 element (what you are listing) is front-loaded, followed by return fields and pagination. Terse to the point of being fragmentary, but nothing is wasted.

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 usefully enumerates the returned bundle fields and ordering, and it covers pagination. Parameters and safety are handled by the schema and annotations, leaving no material gap for an agent to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description confirms the app-scoping of appId and the paging nature of cursor but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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 a specific resource (an app's uploaded source map bundles) and its scope (held to one app), which is clearly distinct from siblings like list_releases or list_apps. It stops short of an explicit verb form ('List ...'), but the intended operation is unambiguous.

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: the fragment 'An app's uploaded source map bundles' suggests you call it to inspect source maps for a given app, and the required appId reinforces this. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to an alternative tool.

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