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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine data-boundary disclosure ('Deployment webhook keys are not returned') and the underlying endpoint, which is useful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about pagination limits or rate 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?

Three compact clauses: the action, the returned fields, and a boundary caveat, with the endpoint appended. Nothing is redundant and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the key information an agent would otherwise lack. Pagination and filtering are covered by the schema, so the definition is nearly complete; only the relationship to the single-app sibling is left implicit.

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%, so page, per_page, search and server_id are already fully documented in the schema, including pagination chaining and the per_page range. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource with scope ('List the web applications on a server') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (runcloud_get_webapp for a single app), so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this to enumerate webapps on a server. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the paginated nature of the call or when to prefer a search over a full listing, so the guidance is only adequate.

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