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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful interpretive context ('MCP capability alone does not prove an inference route or Skill installation') but no return format, pagination, or freshness 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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it reads, why the data matters, and when to invoke it. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the middle sentence could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description conveys what the tool returns (an app list plus inference profiles) and why that matters before supplier selection. For a six-parameter, all-optional read tool, this is sufficient, with only return-shape details left unstated.

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 100% with 6 well-documented parameters, so the schema carries the semantics. The description alludes to target app ID, protocol and configuration variant but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond what the schema already states.

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: 'Read the shared Grandet application list and inference profiles.' It also frames the resource's role (app profiles determine API compatibility), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like grandet_find_cheapest_api or grandet_resolve_model, though it never names those siblings.

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 an explicit gating condition: 'Use only when the target app ID, supported protocol or configuration variant is uncertain,' which doubles as a when-not-to-use signal. It stops short of naming which alternative to use when confidence is already high.

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