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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive write in an open world; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context — the file-upload exclusion, the unclaimed-agent rate limit, and the required submit/poll sequence. It does not say what the creation returns (e.g. app id/slug) or whether an app can be deleted after creation, which would round this out.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, and front-loaded: the core action and its scope come first, the alternative second, the required/optional split third, the follow-up workflow last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the workflow and quota but does not describe what a successful creation returns or how the created app is referenced afterward. The pointer to get_submission_status partly compensates, leaving a modest 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the requiredness of title and optionality of tagline/category and the submit flag, but that information is already in the schema and adds no new syntax, format, or interaction detail for the 14 parameters.

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 ('Create an app listing') and enumerates the kinds it covers (web, url, repo or mobile) plus the key constraint ('without uploading files'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling publish_app rather than leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule ('For a web app prefer publish_app, which creates, uploads and submits in one call') and a complete follow-up path ('Then call submit_app (or pass submit true) and poll get_submission_status'). It also states a concrete quota condition for unclaimed agents (3 apps a day), so when-to-use and constraints are both covered.

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