List all program applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only adds that the result is paginated, which is also visible from the page/page_size parameters, so it contributes little beyond structured 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence partially duplicates the enum and default already in the schema, which is mild redundancy rather than bloating.

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 read-only, no-required-parameter list endpoint whose 8 parameters are fully described in the schema and whose safety profile is covered by annotations, the description is adequate. It omits return shape and default pagination behavior, but with no output schema and rich annotations those gaps are minor.

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%: page, search, status, account, country, group_id, page_size and sort_order are all documented, including the pending default. The description restates the status enum and pagination without adding any semantics the schema lacks, so 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 (Retrieve/list) and resource (applications for your partner program), with pagination noted. It is reasonably distinct from sibling list tools like list_partners or list_bounty_submissions, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 second sentence implies usage by pointing at the status filter and its three values, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no discrimination against the many other list_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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