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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden and it does well: it discloses the catalog scope, the api_runnable gate, and the file-upload exclusion. It stops short of noting pagination, auth, or rate limits, but the key behavioral constraint for the agent's decision (which apps are runnable) is stated.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler, front-loading the primary purpose and then the mode-selection rule. Efficient and well-ordered.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't explain returns; it instead covers the crucial cross-tool relationship (app-list → app-run) and the runnability constraint. Nothing essential is missing 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 description coverage is 0% at the top level, so the description must compensate and it does: it defines slug (single app + input_schema), query (filter), and the summary mode without slug. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw nested 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+resource ('List the SupaMarketers Apps') and immediately defines the two modes (summary vs single-app with input_schema). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like app-run and app-status.

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?

Explicit routing: call without slug for a list, with slug to get input_schema 'needed before app-run'. It also names the precondition for running (api_runnable=true) and excludes file-upload apps. This is textbook when-to-use guidance.

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