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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context (organized by path, results passable to get-endpoint) but does not disclose any limitations such as pagination or output size. It provides some added value beyond annotations but not extensive.

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?

The description is two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then give a practical usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundant information or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and existing annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (paths, methods, summaries) and how to use the output. It doesn't mention pagination or error handling, but those are not critical for a straightforward list operation, so it is nearly complete.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single 'title' parameter, including a description that tells users to use list-specs or search-endpoints to see available specs. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it relies entirely on the schema, which is already complete.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and clearly identifies the resource: all API paths with their HTTP methods and summaries, organized by path. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get-endpoint (which fetches a single endpoint) and search-endpoints (which searches), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 indicates a clear workflow: results can be passed directly into get-endpoint, which signals when to use this tool as a discovery step. However, it does not explicitly contrast with search-endpoints or list-specs, so it lacks explicit exclusions, though the context is well implied.

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