Re-querying installed apps on a specific endpoint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a state-changing, non-repeatable operation. The description adds required permissions (view_installed_software, view_endpoints), which is real value beyond annotations. However, it never says that a re-query dispatches a job to the endpoint agent and is asynchronous, nor that the response reflects a queued refresh rather than fresh data.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the permission requirement is placed after the purpose. Slightly terse for a destructive trigger operation, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations plus 100% schema coverage handle safety and argument semantics, so the definition is workable. The missing piece is operational context an agent needs for a mutation tool: that the request is asynchronous, that dry_run previews it, and what happens if it is issued repeatedly.

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%, including the non-obvious confirm="YES" and dry_run default true, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing on parameters, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (re-query) and resource (installed apps) scoped to a single endpoint, which implicitly distinguishes it from action1_requery_installed_software_for_org. It stops short of naming the sibling or contrast case explicitly, so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to trigger a re-query versus reading cached data via action1_list_installed_software_data / action1_get_installed_software_endpoint, and no note on when the org-wide variant applies. The only routing signal is the required permission pair, which is useful but not usage guidance.

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