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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: which env-var names each framework reads (VITE_BRIDGE_*, NEXT_PUBLIC_BRIDGE_APP_ID, BRIDGE_APP_ID/BRIDGE_API_KEY), that bridge-angular has no env-var convention, and that the base URL reflects the server's own environment.

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 opening sentence front-loads the return contents and the usage sentence follows immediately. The framework-specific env-var enumeration is long but each clause conveys distinct, actionable information; only minor trimming would be possible.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly by enumerating each returned field, including per-framework env-var names. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 a single optional parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already explains it ('Omit to use the current app'). The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (Read) and enumerates exactly what it returns — app id, API base URL, redirect URIs, callback URI, CORS origins, env-var names — and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings get_auth_config and get_app. An agent can identify this tool without opening any 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 explicit when-to-use triggers (scaffolding a project, writing a .env, debugging a redirect/CORS mismatch) and routes to alternatives with their distinct purposes: get_auth_config for login-method setup, get_app for the full app object. Nothing is left to inference.

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