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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden for safety. It adds the behavioral constraint that it only searches 'saved private micro apps', clarifying scope (not public or other users' apps). It does not mention pagination or result ordering, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 a single sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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 read-only search with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and search fields. It does not explicitly state the return format, but given the simplicity of a search tool and the annotations covering safety, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, with both parameters already described in the input schema (tag: 'Filter to apps carrying this tag', query: 'Search query — name, description or tag'). The description echoes the query parameter's meaning but adds no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'saved private micro apps', with search criteria 'by name, description or tag'. It clearly distinguishes this search tool from siblings like apps_create, apps_edit, and apps_read by focusing on retrieval rather than mutation or single-record access.

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 this tool is for searching apps, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives such as apps_read (for retrieving a specific app by ID) or apps_build. The usage context is implied rather than stated, so it meets the 'implied usage' threshold but not the 'explicit when/when-not' standard.

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