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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds valuable disclosure: the response envelope { collaborators: [...] } and the fact that each entry carries a status, plus the underlying API endpoint for traceability. It does not cover permission requirements or error cases, keeping it below a 5.

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 sentences: purpose first, definition in parentheses, then API path and return shape. No filler and the key information 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, endpoint and return envelope, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Minor omissions are auth/error behavior and whether the list is ever paginated.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that app accepts a name or app id. The description's API path template ({app}) corroborates this but adds no new syntax or format detail. 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?

A specific verb (list) and resource (an app's collaborators), with a parenthetical that defines what a collaborator is (users invited to the app) and what is returned alongside (their status). This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from sibling list tools such as scalingo_list_variables or scalingo_list_addons.

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 use case (fetch collaborators of a given app) is implied clearly, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statements (e.g. app must exist, viewer permissions), and no named alternatives. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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