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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by declaring the org:read scope, the exact OpenAPI operationId/path, and the fact that the same HTTP API, billing, and rate limits apply, plus a guard against inventing other paths.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose is in the first line, and the remaining lines are short, distinct facts about scope, endpoint mapping, API behavior, and a constraint. No sentence is redundant.

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 low-complexity read with one optional, fully documented parameter and safety annotations, the description covers scope, endpoint, and API constraints. It does not enumerate the return fields in 'app settings,' and there is no output schema, which is the only notable gap.

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 the schema already explains x_app_id fully (override the header, omit by default, set only for multi-app orgs). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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 and resource ('Get current app details') and clarifies the output ('Returns the current app's settings'). It also pins the operation to GET /manage-org/app, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getOrganization and getTemplate.

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 intended use is implied by 'current app details' and the org:read scope, and the path mapping provides operational grounding. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so an agent has to infer selection from the purpose line.

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