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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds the authentication requirement '(needs a token)' plus the fact that status is live/current and what dimensions it exposes. It stops short of 5 by not saying anything about ordering, volume, or how an app with no campaign is represented.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a short auth parenthetical, with the resource first and the clarifying field names second. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 parameters, a trivially simple schema, and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and mostly discharges it by enumerating the status fields. It would be fully complete if it clarified the per-app grouping and what 'open slots' means in practice.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully covered, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a no-parameter tool 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?

The description names the resource (the user's apps) and the payload (live status of each testing campaign, with the specific fields active testers, waiting installs, open slots), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. The verb is only implied ('my apps' = list my apps) and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like my_tests, my_account, or my_swap_circle, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite framing beyond the token note, and no mention of alternatives. With 19 siblings, several of which sound like overlapping 'my X' listing tools, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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