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

The description adds value by explicitly stating the operation is 'Free' and describes the catalog contents (ID, method, credits), which is context beyond the safety annotations. However, since the annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description primarily adds helpful attributes rather than behavioral constraints.

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 definition is highly concise and logically structured. The two sentences front-load the resource description and immediately provide the necessary workflow instructions to the agent.

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?

Given that this is a discovery tool with no parameters, the definition is perfectly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it includes, and how it relates to subsequent steps in the workflow.

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?

Since the input schema contains zero parameters, the description focuses entirely on defining the semantics of the *output* (ID, method, path, credits). This is appropriate for a discovery tool and meets the baseline for zero-parameter functions.

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 clearly defines the tool's function as listing all available API operations, specifying the included data points like credits, method, and path. It distinguishes itself by offering a comprehensive catalog of operations, unlike tools that operate on specific data.

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?

It provides explicit workflow guidance by telling the agent to use this tool for discovery and then use `get_endpoint_docs` for fetching full reference details. This maps out the entire usage pattern perfectly.

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