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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds important behavior beyond that: the permission requirement, the default short versus detailed response modes, the meaning of an empty actionNeeded, and the presence of release notes and actions per version. It does not describe error behavior or rate limits, but it substantially clarifies what the caller receives.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is a dense single paragraph with nested parentheticals that make the return-shape details harder to scan. Most content earns its place, but structure could be improved by separating input sourcing, output modes, and permission requirements.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does this well for changes, actionNeeded, whatsNew, and the effect of detail. It leaves some minor gaps around error conditions and explicit sibling routing, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains exactly where to obtain the installed object, clarifies that detail controls both the version list and whatsNew list, and notes that core follows the same actionNeeded behavior.

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 precise question the tool answers: which installed apps have newer versions covered by the site's license, and which are not covered. It names the resource (installed apps and newer versions) and distinguishes the result from a simple version lookup by mentioning coverage and fixes.

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 gives useful preconditions: pass installed versions from the site's manifest, and the caller needs download permission. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus related siblings like renew_updates, get_download, or get_license, nor does it state when not to use it.

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