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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that filtering is optional and unrestricted by default, but says nothing about result volume, default limit behavior, or whether the full set is returned in one page.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero redundant text. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining burden is light. Still, for a discovery tool among many endpoint-ish siblings, the description leaves unclear what an endpoint record contains and how it relates to get_endpoint_schema or list_platforms.

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 three parameters are already documented, including the 1-500 limit range and match fields for query. The description only restates platform and query at a high level and omits limit entirely, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema (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?

Specific verb+resource ("Find AM-CORE endpoints") with scope modifiers named. It doesn't reference the closest siblings (get_endpoint_schema, list_platforms), so an agent must infer the boundary, and "AM-CORE" is unexplained jargon.

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 "optionally filtered by platform and/or a search term" implies when the filters are useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as get_endpoint_schema for drilling into a single endpoint.

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