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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description aligns with these by stating a list operation, but it does not add extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction, but no additional insight either.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that convey all necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured and to the point.

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 simple list operation, the description sufficiently explains what information will be returned (people, roles, grant status). No output schema exists, but the description covers the needed context without gaps.

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 single parameter app_id is fully described in the schema with additional useful details (e.g., 'returned by search_apps or create_app' and 'starts with app_'), which goes beyond just the type and provides practical guidance for filling the parameter. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the purpose: listing people an app is shared with, their roles, and grant attachment status. It uses a specific verb ('list') and specifies the resource (app shares), distinguishing it from sibling tools like share_app or revoke_app_share.

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 implies usage for retrieving share information but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., share_app or revoke_app_share). No direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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