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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: import of a live app is asynchronous and takes ~10-30s, and the caller must poll list_apps until status is 'ready'. It omits failure modes (invalid URL, duplicate app) but the async contract is the key gap it closes.

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 sentences, no filler, and the primary path (App Store link) is front-loaded ahead of the fallback and the latency/polling caveat.

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 two-optional-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, existing annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknown — that the operation is asynchronous and requires polling. Error/duplicate handling is the only notable omission.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the 'not on the App Store yet' note for name. The description restates that condition rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Add an app') and explains the two distinct input modes — App Store link vs. bare name for unreleased apps. It names list_apps, but only as a polling target rather than as an alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is partial.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: use the App Store link for live apps, use the name for apps not yet released. It also tells the agent what to do afterward (poll list_apps). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming a competing sibling like edit_set.

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