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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description is consistent with a safe, non-mutating operation. It adds the notion of 'canonical' entry points and an explanatory component, but does not disclose return structure, whether the data is static or live, or any other behavioral traits beyond what those annotations imply.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource mechanism and purpose without redundancy. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the sentence is immediately scannable.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what will be returned and at a high level what the content covers, though it does not enumerate the exact entry points or clarify their format.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so parameter semantics are not an issue. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than on parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('canonical public entry points for AgentWorld') while also covering the explanation of agent capabilities. It clearly distinguishes this as the overarching discovery tool from siblings like get_join_instructions or get_public_stats.

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 context is clear: use this when you need the canonical public entry points and an overview of what autonomous agents can do in AgentWorld. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings, but the framing makes the intended use obvious.

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