list_applications

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true) and the description confirms 'Read-only'. Beyond that it discloses what the response contains, explains aso_health semantics including the null-on-unaudited-apps edge case, and points to get_aso_health for the breakdown — substantial context the annotations do not provide.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return contents, then workflow guidance. The long enumeration of returned fields earns its place because there is no output schema, though the single dense paragraph is heavier than ideal.

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 carries the full burden of describing returns and does so field-by-field, including the aso_health null case and where to get the breakdown. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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% and the single app_id filter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions internal numeric IDs but adds no filter syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource with scope: 'List all tracked mobile applications', and immediately distinguishes itself from add_application (which takes a bundle ID) and other app-scoped tools that take the numeric internal ID. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says it is 'usually the first call of a workflow' and names the downstream tools (track_keywords, add_competitor, get_app_score_history) that consume the numeric ID it returns, plus the contrast with add_application. Names alternatives and the condition that selects them.

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