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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the organizational detail (grouped by path) and the direct compatibility with 'get-endpoint', which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like pagination, response size, or whether all specs' endpoints are listed or just the current spec, which would be valuable context.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core function is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable workflow hint. Every word earns its place.

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 a single well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it returns (paths, methods, summaries), how it's organized, and how to use the results. The only minor gap is not specifying whether the list covers all specs or just one, but the parameter implies a specific spec.

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 the schema already documents the 'title' parameter. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but it does reinforce that the title refers to an OpenAPI spec and points to sibling tools for discovering available specs. This is baseline 3 territory since the schema carries the load.

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 clearly states the tool's function: listing all API paths and their HTTP methods with summaries, organized by path. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting results can be passed directly into 'get-endpoint', which is a specific and useful differentiation.

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 to use this tool: to get an overview of all endpoints, and it hints at the workflow by saying results can be passed to 'get-endpoint'. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'search-endpoints' for filtering, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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