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

No annotations provided, so the description carries more burden. It discloses that results are paginated (limit 1–50, cursor from next_cursor) and returns AppSummary with absolute urls, but does not mention required permissions, rate limits, or empty-result behavior (though schema notes empty q returns none).

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose then filter/pagination details. No wasted words, though it omits some schema-level details that could be redundant.

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 search/list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main filters and return type (AppSummary with urls). However, it doesn't explain the absence of an output schema or provide a comprehensive view of the return object fields. It is adequate but not complete given the tool's complexity.

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 documents each parameter fully. The description adds a compact summary of filters and pagination but no new semantic detail beyond what the schema states (e.g., default values, allowed enums). 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+resource ('Search or list approved apps') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_app (retrieval by id) and list_my_apps (scoped list). The 'approved apps' qualifier sets scope.

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?

Describes filter combinations (e.g., 'q (relevance order)', sort options) but does not explicitly say when to use this vs list_my_apps or get_app. Usage is implied by the filter list rather than stated.

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