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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description still adds real behavioral value: credential field redaction (appSecret, tenantSecret, appToken, passwords), the exact 401 failure mode, and the empty-list outcome when the user owns no apps.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what it lists and scoped to ownership, then results, then auth/errors/related tools. No filler, every clause carries information.

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 compensates fully by naming the returned fields (appId, displayName, domainName, ownership, bot-status), the redaction policy, the error case, and the related reveal/update/select tools. An agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-level the description needs to explain beyond routing the resulting appId into follow-up tools, which it already does.

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 ('List all Ethora apps (tenants)') and narrows scope to apps owned by the current user, which separates it from ethora-app-create/update/select. The parenthetical '(tenants)' even disambiguates the domain term.

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 clear activation context: user-auth mode with an active session and 'ethora-user-login first' as a prerequisite. It also routes downstream ('feed appId into ethora-app-update / ethora-app-select'). It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named sibling to use instead, so 4 rather than 5.

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