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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it discloses the exact status categories returned and states that no status remains pending after a publish, which informs polling behavior. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the output schema handles the return shape.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the return values followed by usage guidance. It is dense and mostly earns its place, though the em-dash construction in the second sentence is slightly awkward and could be split for easier parsing.

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 an output schema and annotations present, the description covers the tool's purpose, status values, and when to use it versus publish. It omits error handling (e.g., invalid app_id) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent 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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('the app id to check'), so the schema fully documents it. The description does not add any semantic detail about the app_id beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Returns where an app stands') and enumerates the exact status values: created and never published, ready, or failed with the reason. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling 'publish' tool by noting that publish already returns the final status.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the person asks whether their app is up, or whether a reserved app ever got content.' It also names the alternative ('publish already returns the final status') and clarifies that nothing stays pending after publish, so the agent knows when not to call this tool.

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