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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the source of truth (the OpenAPI contract) and the returned field set, but says nothing about pagination/limit behavior beyond default 50 or what the raw 'openapi' format returns. Adequate but thin against an already-covered annotation set.

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?

A single tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and output, with the optional filtering clause placed second. No filler or restated structured data.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential shape of what comes back (method/path/summary) and the filtering capability. It stops short of explaining the materially different 'openapi' output mode, though the enum in the schema partly carries that.

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%, so all four parameters are documented there, making 3 the baseline. The description adds one useful nuance — the filter matches a substring of the path OR the summary — but does not clarify how that differs from the separate `path` parameter, which behaves differently depending on `format`.

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 (the API's operations from the OpenAPI contract) and even enumerates the returned fields (method, path, summary). This is readily distinguishable from siblings like docs_search or docs_read_page, which retrieve page content rather than endpoint inventories.

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 description implies when this tool fits ('list the API's operations ... optionally filtered'), and the filter examples clarify a discovery use case. However, it never explicitly routes the agent away from docs_search or docs_read_page when looking for endpoint information, leaving the choice to inference.

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