List apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and scope profile is covered; the description usefully confirms the returned fields. It says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or what an empty account returns, which is the remaining behavioral gap for a list tool.

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 sentences, zero waste, and the workflow hint is placed after the core identification rather than buried mid-text. Every clause earns its place.

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 five optional params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to pick the tool and know what comes back. It leaves pagination behaviour implicit, though cursor/limit are self-explanatory from the schema.

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 every filter (sku, name, bundleId, limit, cursor) is documented in the schema with its matching semantics. The description adds no filter syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline of 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 (Lists) and resource (apps in the App Store Connect account) and enumerates exactly what each result carries: IDs, bundle IDs and SKUs. That return-value detail distinguishes it from siblings such as list_bundle_ids or get_app without needing either 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?

"Start here: most other tools need an app ID" gives an explicit entry-point rule that routes the agent correctly among the 35 siblings. It stops short of naming when to prefer get_app for a single known app or how the sku/name/bundleId filters relate to alternatives, so it is clear context without full exclusions.

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