Public applications by author

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that the upstream list is unpaginated and that page/page_size only bound local MCP output, which is not visible from annotations alone.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about pagination is compact and relevant.

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 simple read-only listing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the unusual pagination behavior. The only minor gap is the slightly ambiguous phrase 'from search_apps or get_app', which could use clarification about whether those are data sources or how the author_id relates to them.

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 compensate. It explains the role of author_id and clarifies that page/page_size control local output bounding, which goes beyond the raw schema. However, it does not elaborate on parameter constraints or default behavior beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 a specific action ('List public apps'), a specific resource ('apps by author_id'), and a scope ('public') that distinguishes it from list_my_apps. The mention of author_id also separates it from broader search or single-app retrieval 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 implies the tool is the right choice when you need public apps for a given author_id, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over search_apps, get_app, or list_my_apps. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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