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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context: "The catalog is public: no sign-in needed for this call," which an agent cannot infer from annotations and matters for auth sequencing. It also sketches the return shape (services[] with service_id, service_name, service_description), though it does not say what happens on zero matches.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the response shape, then the usage rule — a sensible ordering. It is slightly dense, mixing a JSON snippet and API jargon mid-paragraph, but no sentence is superfluous.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, entry-point role, auth requirements, and response fields. The only real gap is behavior when the search returns no matching app, which an agent would likely hit with a long-tail app name.

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% and the single parameter already carries an example ("e.g. slack"). The description's request body snippet {"searchquery": "gmail"} restates that same example rather than adding format rules, matching behavior, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.

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 ("Find an app the user wants to use") and immediately scopes it with named examples (Gmail, Slack, Google Sheets, HubSpot, Notion, Trello) plus the catalog size of 2,300+. That level of specificity separates it cleanly from siblings like list_app_actions or list_actions_and_triggers.

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 declares the trigger condition: "This is the first step whenever the user asks to send, read, create, update or search something in one of their apps, or to automate something across apps." It positions the tool as an entry point rather than an optional lookup, which is exactly the routing signal an agent needs. No explicit exclusions are given, but the positive guidance is strong enough that ambiguity is minimal.

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