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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement (PN_OWNER_TOKEN), which is real behavioral value and implies a read-only listing, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, pagination, or what happens when the token is missing or invalid — all important for a discoverability tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 scope front-loaded, the enumerated command groups in a cheap parenthetical, and the credential requirement trailing. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), so the description's gaps are limited but real: the "app" identifier format and the relationship to owner_command are unresolved. Given the low complexity, a somewhat terser description is defensible, but these two omissions are the ones an agent will most often trip on.

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% for the single required "app" parameter, so the description must compensate. "of an app" only faintly ties the parameter to the tool and never clarifies whether it expects an app ID, slug, or display name — a distinction the agent cannot resolve from the schema alone.

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?

"List the owner commands of an app" gives a specific verb plus a well-scoped resource, and the parenthetical (content, prices, offers, orders, publish) enumerates exactly what kind of commands are returned. It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like list_apps or open_app, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling named owner_command, which an agent would likely conflate it with.

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?

"Needs PN_OWNER_TOKEN" is a genuine precondition that tells the agent what credential must be present before calling. However there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of whether this is the discovery step that precedes owner_command, and no exclusions — the agent must infer that it should call this before executing an owner command.

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