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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds material context not in them: the PUSHNOTIF_API_KEY requirement, the zero-credit cost, and the conditional side effect of include_sdk_framework injecting SDK snippets per app. It also states the exact return payload, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose and then prerequisites, exclusions, and return shape in priority order. No filler sentences, though the inline JSON return signature makes it heavier to read than ideal; a short bullet structure would scan faster.

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?

For a two-param, no-output-schema read tool, everything an agent needs is present: auth requirement, cost, prerequisite ordering, alternative for device-level inspection, optional parameter behavior, and the response shape. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by enumerating and explaining the effect of include_sdk_framework values ('html', 'nextjs', 'laravel', 'wordpress', 'flutter') — each app entry gains ready-to-paste setup code. It says nothing about the app_id filter parameter, leaving that entirely to 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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'List all registered websites and mobile apps in the workspace' including subscriber counts and credit balance. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_subscribers and names the write tools it feeds, so an agent can place it correctly among 15 siblings 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite rule ('use this tool first ... before calling send_push_notification, schedule_push_notification, update_app_branding, delete_app, configure_inapp_banner, configure_rss_autopush') and an explicit exclusion ('do not use it to inspect individual subscriber devices (use list_subscribers instead)'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use, with named alternatives, are stated.

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