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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile, and it does imply a read-only enumeration by describing the return content ('Apps this server can open, with what each one does'). It says nothing about scope limits, completeness, or whether unopenable/system apps are excluded — gaps that matter for a discovery tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the optional filter detail. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered: what comes back and how to filter it. Minor omissions are pagination/result-size behavior and match semantics, but nothing blocking for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description is the only source for the single parameter, and it does explain that query matches name, description, or category and gives two concrete example terms. It stops short of stating match semantics (substring vs exact, case sensitivity), which keeps it from a 5.

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 the resource (apps the server can open) and adds that each entry carries a functional description, which distinguishes it clearly from the sibling open_app (which acts on one app). The verb 'list' is implied by 'Apps this server can open' rather than stated directly, which costs it a point versus a crisp verb+resource phrasing.

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: the list-then-open relationship with open_app is inferable from the sibling name but never stated, and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. The query examples ('shop', 'douala') do at least show a discovery use case.

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