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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it lists apps for the authenticated tenant and returns summaries, which are behavioral traits not in annotations. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but given the annotations, the additional context is valuable.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then provides useful domain context about apps. The explanation of an app is helpful for agents unfamiliar with the concept, and the note about summaries and get_app is concise. It is appropriately sized, not overly verbose.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential usage: what it lists, the scope, the concept of an app, and a pointer to get_app for details. It is complete for a list operation, and the pagination is implied by the page_token parameter. No missing critical information.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description explains the concept of a slug-folder prefix, which relates to the slug_prefix parameter, but does not add syntax or formatting details beyond the schema. It adds marginal domain context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'List the apps belonging to the authenticated tenant', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from get_app by noting it returns summaries and that get_app fetches one. It also explains the app concept, which differentiates it from other list tools like list_app_versions.

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 provides context that when building a new page or shared-API bundle, one works inside an app, which implies list_apps is used to discover existing apps. It also directs to get_app for details, but does not explicitly contrast with other list tools or state when not to use it. There is clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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