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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that results are annotated with review status, which is genuinely beyond the annotations but is a single detail.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, the resource, the scope and the one notable return attribute. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with a fully covered empty schema, this is nearly complete. With no output schema present, a little more about the returned shape (e.g. pagination or whether app IDs/credentials are included) would close the remaining gap.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description does not misrepresent any input expectations.

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 OAuth apps') and narrows the scope to apps 'the user registered with Caly', which separates it from a generic catalog listing. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it is not (e.g. list_app_catalog, delete_oauth_client), so differentiation relies on the agent comparing names.

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?

The phrase 'the user registered with Caly' implicitly signals this is the view of one's own registrations rather than the app catalog, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer the distinction from sibling names such as list_app_catalog and get_app.

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