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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses ordering, the 50-item page size, 1-based paging, and the exact fields returned. It leaves auth behavior and total-count/pagination limits unstated, but the api_key parameter is documented in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (scope, ordering, page size) are front-loaded before the field list and the routing hint.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly enumerates the returned fields. Combined with ordering, page size and the cross-tool routing hint, an agent has enough to call and consume this tool; only auth/pagination boundaries are left implicit.

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 schema already defines both parameters. The description adds the 50-per-page fact that the schema omits, but 'page starts at 1' merely repeats the schema. Marginal value over structured data, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the apps you own') plus ordering ('newest first'), page size, and page numbering. The 'you own' scope cleanly separates it from search_apps, which covers the broader catalog.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream use case and the siblings that consume its output ('find a slug before update_app or publish_app'). It does not state an exclusion (e.g., use search_apps when you do not own the app), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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