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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it says which version the row reflects (whatever the bundle endpoint serves now), how many versions sit behind it, and which store-listing fields (title, kind, category, icon_url via set_app_listing) each row carries.

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 defining scope is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information (return contents, version history path, listing fields). Slightly dense with endpoint references, but nothing is wasted or redundant.

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 describing returned rows, and it does: current version, version count, and store-listing fields. Combined with the annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call and interpret it, though pagination/default-limit behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the name/limit/author/offset filters and their semantics. The description does not add filter syntax or interplay beyond the schema's own text, 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 and resource (browse the miniapp market) and precisely the key differentiator: collapsed to one row per app (author+name) rather than one row per published version. It also names the contrasting sibling, list_apps, so an agent can distinguish it 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?

Explains when to prefer this grouping and routes to alternatives for related needs (GET /apps/:author/:name/versions for full history, POST .../rollback to change the current version). It also references list_apps as the analogous per-version listing. The guidance is clear, though it points at HTTP endpoints rather than sibling MCP tools, so it never explicitly frames a this-vs-list_apps choice in tool terms.

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