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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that results are tenant-scoped and that it 'Returns summaries' rather than full objects — a meaningful behavioral detail the agent would otherwise only learn from a failed assumption.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries information: scope, a definition of the resource domain, and the routing hint to get_app. The middle sentence is long but earns its length by teaching the agent the app/slug-prefix model it needs to author resources correctly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be spelled out, and the description still flags that returns are summaries. Combined with tenant scoping and the get_app pointer, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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%, with page_size, page_token and slug_prefix each documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — it never mentions prefix filtering or pagination — so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List the apps') plus the scope ('belonging to the authenticated tenant'), and then defines what an APP is with concrete examples ('storefront/'). It also contrasts itself with get_app ('fetch one with get_app'), so the agent can distinguish it from the many sibling list_* and get_* tools.

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?

Provides clear usage context ('When building a new page or a shared-API bundle, work inside an app: pick its slug prefix...') and names the alternative for full details ('fetch one with get_app'). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus sibling lists like list_app_versions, but the context is sufficient to select the tool.

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