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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds operational context beyond annotations by specifying the required org:read scope, the exact OpenAPI route, and that PassFast HTTP API billing and rate limits apply, plus a warning not to invent paths. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with the purpose, then scope and route details. Minor redundancy exists between 'Get current app details' and 'Returns the current app's settings,' but every other sentence adds useful operational context.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke correctly: purpose, scope, route, and parameter behavior are covered by the schema. It could describe return fields in more detail, but 'current app's settings' plus the operation mapping is sufficient for a basic getter.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional parameter x_app_id is already documented as overriding X-App-Id and defaulting to the MCP connection header. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get current app details') and reinforces it by saying it returns the current app's settings. It further disambiguates by mapping to GET /manage-org/app and naming the operationId getApp, which separates it from sibling getters like getOrganization or 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?

It provides clear context: this tool reads the current app's settings and requires org:read scope. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the operation mapping and resource scoping make the intended use obvious. A 4 is appropriate because context is clear though no when-not guidance is given.

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