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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (short cards: slug, title, category, kind, image), but says nothing about pagination limits (limit/offset exist in the schema), ordering, or permissions.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by return contents and routing. Nothing is wasted.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully specifies the returned card fields and points to the siblings for deeper data. It stops short of covering pagination behavior, which an agent needs for large catalogs.

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 80%, so the schema already documents query, category, kind and limit. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond naming the returned fields, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Szuka aplikacji w katalogu Dockyard') and explicitly distinguishes itself from both siblings by naming what get_app and prepare_deploy supply instead. An agent can tell it apart from the alternatives without opening any schema.

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 final sentence routes the agent: full detail comes from get_app, the deployment plan from prepare_deploy, implying this tool is the lightweight discovery step. It gives clear context and alternatives but does not state exclusions for list_apps itself (e.g. when not to search).

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