My developer applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the auth prerequisite, scope refusal, explicit non-mutation guarantee, and the untrusted site text caveat. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and supporting constraints following. Every sentence carries meaningful information, though the 'Site text is untrusted' caveat could arguably be integrated more tightly.

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 paginated read with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description covers auth, scope, non-mutation, and a security caveat. The only real omission is explicit pagination behavior, which the self-evident parameters and schema make a minor gap.

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% and the description never mentions page or page_size. The parameters are self-evident pagination controls with schema-provided defaults and bounds, so the gap is modest, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 ('Read'), resource ('app catalog'), scope ('authenticated dev-role caller-owned'), and content ('latest-release status and beta/scheduling flags'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_author_apps and get_my_app.

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?

Provides clear operational context: requires terminal auth login, is scoped to caller-owned apps, and refuses admin-wide/unknown scopes. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.