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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: result ordering (newest first), fixed page size of 50, and the fact that page numbering starts at 1 — meaningful pagination semantics for a list tool.

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, no filler. The scoping and ordering facts come first, then the returned-field inventory, then the routing hint — a front-loaded structure with nothing that fails to earn 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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (slug, title, status, message, page_url, app_url, updated_at) — notably including slug, which is the value the agent needs to chain into update_app or publish_app. Combined with pagination and ordering details, an agent has everything needed to call and consume the result.

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 both parameters (page, api_key) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the page-size constant of 50 items, which the schema does not state, giving the agent a concrete sense of page granularity — a small but real increment over the schema.

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 with ownership scope: 'List the apps you own.' Ordering ('newest first') and page size ('50 per page') sharpen the scope further, and the ownership constraint implicitly separates it from the sibling search_apps, which serves discovery rather than the caller's own inventory.

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 tells the agent when to reach for this tool: 'Use it to find a slug before update_app or publish_app,' naming two downstream siblings by name. It lacks a when-not clause (e.g. use search_apps when you need to find someone else's app by keyword), so it stops just short of a 5.

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