list_apps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what is listed but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, result limits, default ordering, or any error conditions. As a read operation it likely has no side effects, but that is not stated. The lack of behavioral context is a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

The description is well-structured with a purpose sentence, two use-case sentences, and a labeled Args block. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No filler or redundant statements.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, use cases, and parameter semantics. The output schema handles return value details. Missing behavioral traits (pagination, defaults) are the only gaps, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The description explains both parameters clearly: 'search: Case-insensitive filter on the app name' and 'unassigned: Show only listings not yet attached to a product.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only gives types and defaults. It fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('store listings') and lists the fields returned (ids, platform, rating, last sync time). It also gives a clear use case (finding app_id). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_products, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over that.

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?

The description provides explicit use cases: 'find the app_id that other tools need' and 'see which apps are not yet released.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving a small gap in routing guidance.

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