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

readOnlyHint already declares the safe-read profile, and the description adds real context beyond it: 25-per-page pagination and the fields each record carries (OCPI version, roles, registration status). It doesn't discuss ordering or what an empty page means, leaving a small gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource, then pagination, then per-record fields, then the alternate read mode. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields and page size, and the two-parameter input is simple and fully documented. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so both cursor and targetId are fully documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes the modes ("or read one by id") and adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 and resource ("List the OCPI endpoints registered on this account") and covers both modes: paged listing and single-target read by id. The endpoint's fields and the question it answers are both named, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_ocpi_versions or list_runnable_journeys.

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?

"Answers: which endpoints can I run against" gives clear context for when to reach for this tool rather than a version or journey listing. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or a when-not condition, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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