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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context: the resource is a private draft and the call does not publish or expose the app. This goes beyond the annotation hints, though it does not cover authentication or return 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a useful non-goal clarification without redundancy.

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 tool with strong annotations, the description is mostly sufficient: it identifies what is read and what side effects are avoided. The lack of an output schema is partially offset by the simplicity, but a brief mention of what is returned would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema covers the 'context' parameter well but leaves 'application' completely undocumented. The tool description does not clarify what 'application' should contain (ID, slug, name, etc.), and with 50% schema coverage this is a significant gap for an agent trying to construct a valid call.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('private app listing draft and available artwork'). It also explicitly states what the tool does not do ('Does not publish or expose the app'), which helps distinguish it from publishing, saving, and uploading 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?

The intended use case is implied by 'Read a private app listing draft' — it should be used when you need the draft rather than the published app. However, the description names no alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, leaving some routing responsibility to the agent.

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