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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's genuine contribution is the filter semantics — only apps that both are supported and have an active review Flow in this workspace are returned — which explains why results may be fewer than expected. It says nothing about result size, pagination, or ordering.

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?

A single sentence with the resource and the narrowing condition front-loaded and no filler. Every element earns its place, and nothing is repeated from the title beyond what is needed for precision.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with a simple schema and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool returns at a conceptual level (apps with active review Flows). A small gap remains: with no output schema, a brief note on what identifies each app (ID vs. name) would help the agent chain into the review tools.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to add; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filter arguments that the schema does not accept.

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") plus a specific resource ("supported apps") and adds a scoping qualifier ("with an active review Flow in this workspace"). It is easy to distinguish from the sibling tools, which all operate on reviews rather than on the app catalog, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to discover app IDs before calling get_review or get_review_stats, but the description never says so, nor does it state any when-not condition. Adequate but leaves the routing inference to the reader.

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