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

The description discloses two behavioral traits beyond the bare title: embedding preserves access permissions and does not publish the app. However, with no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, it still leaves open whether embedding mutates any state or requires special authentication.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and uses no filler. The second sentence adds meaningful behavioral context without redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no nested objects or output schema, the description covers the core operation and an important consequence (no publishing). It could mention what the user sees after embedding, but the missing detail is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter 'slug' as the app's URL slug, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, which makes a baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific action ('Show'), a clear resource ('a saved micro app'), and a location ('in the conversation'), which distinguishes it from generic app operations. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like apps_read or apps_test, but the intent is still recognizable.

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 implies use when the agent wants to display an existing micro app in a conversation rather than create, edit, or test it. It adds a relevant scoping note ('does not publish the app'), but never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use this tool.

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