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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination via 'cursor from next_cursor', page-size bounds (1–50), and the return type ('AppSummary objects with absolute urls'). It does not mention rate limits, auth needs, or how empty/no-filter queries behave.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the filters, with zero filler. The limit range and cursor provenance are compressed into a single clause that 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return type (AppSummary with absolute urls) and explains cursor pagination, which the schema alone does not fully convey. It is largely complete for a 7-parameter read tool, though it omits what happens with zero filters and how relevance ordering via q interacts with other filters.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including allowed values and defaults. The description restates the filter names and the 1–50 limit range without adding semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 scopes it to approved apps, which implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_apps and get_app. It does not explicitly name the sibling it is not, but the resource scope is clear enough to separate it from most alternatives.

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?

The description implies two modes (full-text search via q vs. listing/browsing via sort/period/category/tag), but never states when to choose this tool over get_app, list_my_apps, or list_categories, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable from 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.