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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the agent otherwise wouldn't know: the three-way grouping taxonomy, that each entry carries method, path and path parameters, and an external reference URL. It stops short of stating output size/pagination behavior for a potentially large catalog.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the routing taxonomy, then the usage instruction, then a reference link. No filler sentences; the density of the opening sentence is justified by the routing information it carries.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields each entry returns (method, path, path parameters) and by pointing to Oracle's reference docs. For a one-optional-param read-only discovery tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'connection' (id or label from list_connections, defaults to the user's default connection). The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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 ('Lists the Oracle EPM REST operations this connector can call') and goes further by partitioning the catalog into read/jobs/write buckets, each mapped to its concrete sibling tool. An agent can distinguish this from epm_rest_read, epm_rest_run_job and epm_rest_write without opening any 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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it to find the operation id and parameters before a generic REST call.' It also names the three alternative execution tools and the category conditions that select each, so the discovery-then-execute flow is unambiguous.

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