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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds what is returned per mode, including that schemas are resolved, which is behavior the agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 dense sentences with the scoping modes front-loaded and no filler. The telegraphic 'Without path: / With path:' style is efficient, though slightly terse for a reader unfamiliar with the tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so for both modes (operation list vs parameters/body/responses with resolved schemas). Few remaining unknowns for a two-optional-parameter read tool.

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 path and method are already documented in the schema, including the example path and the method default. The description restates the path/method effect but adds only the 'all operations vs one operation' framing, which fits the baseline 3.

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 precisely what the resource is: the published HTTP contract under /api/v1 shared by Atlas and the self-hosted engine. The 'HTTP' framing implicitly separates it from the java_api sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Explains the two operating modes clearly: no path returns every operation, path (plus method) returns that operation's parameters, body and responses. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over search_docs, get_guide or java_api, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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