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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does partially: it discloses the outcome vocabulary (LISTED vs NOT-LISTED), flags listed terms as SELLER-ASSERTED (an unverified, self-reported trust level), and states the call is free. It leaves unaddressed whether the registry is authoritative, whether calls are rate limited, or what happens on an endpoint never seen before beyond the NOT-LISTED label.

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 tight sentences, with the cost signal front-loaded and the return semantics immediately following. Every clause adds information and nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, the description covers purpose and the shape of the response, which is the minimum an agent needs to act. It is incomplete on parameter semantics, on what "listed terms" actually contain, and on how this differs from the sibling registry tools.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, yet it never mentions endpoint_url or the optional method parameter. An agent must guess the URL format and, more importantly, why an HTTP method would matter for a registry lookup.

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?

"Query the registry for an endpoint's listed terms" gives a specific verb (query) plus resource (registry) and narrows the unit of lookup to a single endpoint, which separates it from the list-style siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming quote_registry_list or quote_registry_criteria as the alternatives, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The phrase "for an endpoint's listed terms" implies this is a single-endpoint lookup, and "FREE" signals a zero-cost call, which is useful selection context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus quote_registry_list (enumerate everything) or quote_registry_criteria (understand listing rules), and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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