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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying 'newest first' and organization scope. It does not enumerate output format or pagination, but the annotations carry the bulk of the transparency burden here.

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, immediately front-loaded with the core action and scope. 'Use search...' is a helpful addition rather than padding. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only list operation, the description covers the core elements: what is being listed, the scope, ordering, and a search assistant. It does not describe the return shape or pagination, which would be useful, but given the read-only annotations and straightforward nature of the tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it independently.

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 coverage is only 33%, and the description compensates for only one param: 'search' is explained as finding by name or slug. The 'limit' parameter is left entirely to the schema, which only provides numeric constraints, and the 'context' parameter is already documented in the schema. A fuller statement of how limit applies would bring this higher.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('applications in this organization'), and adds key distinguishing behavior: newest-first ordering and a built-in search mechanism. This plainly differentiates it from the sibling tools such as springroll.app.get and springroll.app.update.

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 context: it lists apps org-wide, newest first, and tells the agent to use the 'search' parameter when looking for a single app by name or slug. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over a sibling tool like get, but the guidance is enough for a straightforward listing operation.

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