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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that this is a visual picker optimized for in-chat cards, but it does not describe failure modes, auth requirements, or whether the picker is persistent. The annotations carry the main safety burden here.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The comparison to ucode_sms_summary is valuable routing context, and the in-chat card optimization is explained without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema plus safety annotations, so the core purpose is conveyed. However, the limit parameter is left entirely unexplained, and 'when the user wants a number' is vague enough that an agent may struggle to decide when this tool is the correct choice.

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 0%, so the description must explain what limit and search do. It mentions search as a feature but does not clarify what search matches or what limit controls. Without this, an agent cannot confidently decide how to populate either parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('opens the visual service picker') and the content ('popular apps + search'). It also distinguishes itself from ucode_sms_summary by noting the same data is presented in an in-chat card format, so an agent can tell this apart from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: call after sign-in or when the user wants a number. It references ucode_sms_summary as the data-equivalent tool, which helps routing, though it does not list exclusions or other alternatives like ucode_services_catalog.

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