list_apps

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description would need to add context beyond that. It mentions filters (already fully documented in the schema) but says nothing about pagination behavior, default result size, or result shape that isn't already in the parameter descriptions.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the filtering capability immediately after. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 a fully documented schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, this is nearly sufficient. The lack of an output schema leaves result shape and pagination semantics to the parameter text, which is a minor gap but adequately covered there.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in detail, including defaults and the 200-vs-1000 limit nuance. The description merely repeats the name and bundleId filters, adding no meaning beyond the schema – the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('apps in your App Store Connect account'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling get_app. It does not explicitly name siblings or scope, but the list-vs-get distinction is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the mention of optional filters. There is no statement of when to use this versus get_app, list_app_store_versions, or other listing siblings, and no prerequisites are given.

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