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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile, but the description adds real behavior: results are newest-first, and the meaning of has_api and rating_avg/rating_count including their provenance (raters who installed it). This is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then filtering and ordering, then per-item field semantics. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 takes on return-value duty and does so partially: it explains ordering and two notable per-item fields plus related endpoints. It stops short of describing the full item shape or pagination behavior, but is sufficient to call the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, author, limit, and offset. The description only echoes the name/author filtering and omits pagination semantics entirely, adding essentially nothing over the schema.

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 and resource: 'Browse the miniapp market', with filtering scope (author/name) and result ordering. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like list_apps_grouped or get_app.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Browse the miniapp market. Filter by author or name', and it cross-references install/rate/API-doc endpoints for follow-up actions. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_apps_grouped or when to fall back to get_app, and states no exclusions.

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