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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'No secrets are included', all sections are returned by default, and each section costs a query. This gives the agent practical expectations for cost and data scope.

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?

The description is well-structured: a clear opening sentence, a scannable bullet list for sections, and a concise closing tip about narrowing include. Every sentence adds value and the most important behavior is front-loaded.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so thoroughly for the optional sections. It covers the main output areas and parameter behavior, though the base 'metadata, lifecycle stage, risk score' fields remain somewhat high-level.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining what each optional section returns and clarifying the include parameter's default behavior, which the schema alone does not convey. It adds real meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns an application's registry record' and enumerates what's inside (metadata, lifecycle stage, risk score, optional sections). It clearly differentiates from siblings like app.list by focusing on a single application's record.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: 'This answers "where is my app up to?"' and advises passing a narrower include when only part of the record is needed to save queries. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the guidance is strong enough to select it correctly.

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