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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the discrete state model and the guarantee that nothing stays pending after publish. It does not mention auth requirements or polling behavior, which would have pushed it higher.

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 return states, which is the most important information, and the routing note follows. The second sentence is a dense em-dash run-on, but no sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description correctly focuses on state semantics and routing. It is essentially complete for a single-parameter status read, with only minor gaps around staleness/polling expectations.

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?

Only one parameter (app_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the id beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('returns where an app stands') and enumerates the exact returnable states: created/never published, ready, or failed with the reason. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `publish`, which returns the final status, so an agent can route between them without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering contexts ('whether their app is up', 'whether a reserved app ever got content') and an implicit exclusion via publish ('publish already returns the final status, and nothing stays pending after it'). It does not mention list_apps or get_app_context as alternatives, but the primary when-to-use is clear.

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