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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context: it is a meta/orientation call that should be made once, and it reduces a 30-tool surface to a single map. It does not describe the shape of the returned map (e.g. grouping key) in any detail.

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?

Front-loads the meta-tool framing and the 'call once' instruction before the follow-up pointer. Three sentences with only mild salesmanship ('cuts a 30-tool surface down'), no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden; it does so at a high level ('canonical REST paths and field shapes'). An agent knows what it gets and how to chain into `get_endpoint_examples`, though the exact result structure is not specified.

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 coverage is 100%, and the two parameters (account, workspace) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about them, which is acceptable given full schema documentation but earns only the baseline.

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: returns canonical REST paths and field shapes for the Status, Priority, and Task-Level catalogues across scopes. It explicitly positions itself as an orientation/meta tool distinct from the endpoint-example tools an agent would otherwise reach for.

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?

Explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call this ONCE before reaching for endpoint-example tools', followed by the named alternative (`get_endpoint_examples`) and the condition under which to use it. When-to-use and what-to-use-next are both spelled out.

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