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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the exact return fields, the 401 error when not logged in, and the empty-list result when the user owns no apps. This fully informs an agent of expected behavior.

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 compact and well-ordered: the core purpose comes first, followed by return shape, auth requirements, error behavior, and related tools. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.

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 properly explains what the tool returns (array with appId, displayName, domainName, ownership and bot-status metadata). Combined with annotations and the empty-parameter schema, nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description needs no further parameter explanation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all Ethora apps (tenants) owned by the currently logged-in user'). It distinguishes this tool from the many app-related siblings by emphasizing ownership scope and the current user.

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?

It provides clear prerequisites (user-auth mode, active session after ethora-user-login) and downstream use cases via the Related line. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but no equivalent list sibling exists, so this is strong usage guidance.

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