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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the result includes the listing page and that the call is a prerequisite gate; it doesn't describe what a negative answer looks like or edge cases like malformed domains.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the outcome and the prerequisite ordering are both front-loaded.

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, and the description partially compensates by revealing the return content ('and its page'). For a single-parameter read-only check with full annotations, this is nearly sufficient; a brief note on the negative-result shape would complete it.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'website' parameter already has an example ('acme.com'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about accepted formats, domain vs URL normalization, or length limits, which is baseline-appropriate given the coverage.

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 resource and question: whether a website already has a published AppFinder listing, plus its page. It is distinguishable from siblings like search_apps or get_app, though the verb itself comes from the tool name rather than the description.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call this before prepare_listing' tells the agent exactly where this step belongs in a workflow. It does not state when-not to call it or name any alternative for the same check, so it stops 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.