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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits pagination/volume behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One compact sentence covering scope and return shape, followed by a short routing directive. Front-loaded, no filler, every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what the agent needs: what it lists, what comes back, and where the id comes from. Only the absence of any note on result size or pagination leaves a small gap.

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% and the schema itself gives the meaning and an example ('ticket-purchase-registration'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the source of the id (list_modules), a minor supplement rather than new semantics.

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 (list) and resource (endpoints) scoped to 'one module', and enumerates the returned fields (id, method, path, sub-group, summary). This distinguishes it cleanly from list_modules and the singular get_endpoint without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite and provenance for the argument: 'Use the module id from list_modules.' That is real routing guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_endpoint or search_docs, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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