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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read, and the description adds that it requires no arguments and no auth. It also discloses the return format as Markdown. These are useful additions beyond the annotation, though richer details such as whether the guide is static or app-specific are not provided.

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 three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Each sentence adds actionable information: what it returns, that it needs no args/auth, and when to call it. There is no filler.

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 zero-argument, read-only guide tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly. It covers the return format, auth requirements, and sequencing relative to publish_app. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description confirms there are no arguments, which matches the empty input schema. There is no additional parameter meaning to add because none exist.

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: it returns a Markdown guide for making a playable demo of apps that cannot run in a browser. It distinguishes this guide tool from the sibling publish_app by mentioning its role before publishing. The scope is further narrowed to native Swift/Kotlin apps or apps needing a server, login, or hardware.

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 explicitly says when to call it: for apps that cannot run in a browser, and before publish_app. The condition and sequencing are clear, so an agent can tell whether this tool applies without inference. It also notes no arguments and no auth, reducing invocation uncertainty.

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