List applications

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), yet the description adds real value: it enumerates the returned fields, explains the null case for aso_health, and points to get_aso_health for the breakdown. The trailing 'Read-only' duplicates the annotation, but the null semantics and downstream-ID behavior are non-obvious context.

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?

Purpose and workflow positioning are front-loaded, and the long field enumeration earns its place given there is no output schema. Slightly dense, but no redundant sentences beyond the 'Read-only' tail that the annotations already assert.

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 return-value burden and does so thoroughly (fields, null behavior, pointer to the detail tool). It also supplies the cross-tool ID contract, which is the key thing an agent needs to chain calls correctly.

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 there, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the filter at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema on this dimension.

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+resource ('List all tracked mobile applications') and immediately differentiates itself from the closest sibling by noting that add_application takes the store bundle ID while this tool returns the numeric internal ID. An agent can distinguish it without opening any 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 positions the tool as 'usually the first call of a workflow' and names the downstream consumers (track_keywords, add_competitor, get_app_score_history, other app-scoped tools). It also contrasts input conventions with add_application, giving both when-to-use and when-not guidance.

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