List apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so "Read-only" adds nothing new. The description does add real value beyond annotations by disclosing the permission scoping (results limited to what the API key can see) and the returned identity fields. It says nothing about pagination behavior or how to traverse beyond the limit.

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, front-loaded with the read-only status and the core scope before the optional filter. No filler, and every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the access scope, and the fields returned, which substitutes for the missing output schema. The only gap is pagination/traversal behavior for the limit parameter.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's "filter by part of the name or bundle ID" essentially restates the schema's own wording for 'search' rather than adding semantics such as matching rules for the limit parameter.

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 and resource ("Lists the apps in App Store Connect") plus the access scope ("that your API key can see") and returned fields (bundle IDs and Apple IDs). It implicitly contrasts with the singular get_app sibling via the plural 'list', but never names or explicitly distinguishes it.

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 final sentence gives clear guidance on the optional filtering behavior (partial match on name or bundle ID), which implies the main usage pattern. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_app (single app lookup) or the other list_* siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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