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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly spells out what the tool does not do: inspect a wallet, bypass app lock, sign, broadcast, import, export, or delete anything. It also adds that links only open visible UI, which is valuable behavioral context not present in annotations.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a concise safety clarification. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given there are no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what will be returned, what the tool is safe to do, and what it will never do, leaving no important gap for invocation or selection.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema is fully complete. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriately strong.

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 names a specific verb, 'Return', and a specific resource, 'canonical navigation-only app entry points', and lists the exact fields returned. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools, especially get_app_screen, by emphasizing 'navigation-only' and 'entry points'.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs canonical, navigation-only app entry points with metadata and safety guarantees. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough to avoid obvious misuse.

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