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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest of the burden and does so well: it discloses that secret names are returned but never values (an important safety boundary), that event delivery status is included, and that run counts are measured against the plan's limit. That quota/limit framing is real behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not describe pagination or response shape, but for a read-only tool this is strong.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource ('the code that runs on this app's events') before enumerating returns. Every clause conveys distinct information — source, secret names, delivery, quota — with no padding, though the colon-list structure is close to overloaded.

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 must carry the return-value burden, and it does by enumerating the four returned facets. For a simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, this is close to complete; only pagination/response-format details are absent.

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 (api_key, appSlug) are documented in the schema itself, including the HTTP-vs-stdio caveat for api_key. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 names the specific resource (the code handler for an app's events) and enumerates exactly what is returned — source, secret names, delivery status, and monthly run usage. Combined with the title 'Read an app's code handler', an agent can distinguish it from the write-side sibling anyhook_code_deploy. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as anyhook_code_test, anyhook_inspect, or anyhook_code_deploy. Usage is only inferable from the list of returned fields. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance is provided.

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