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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by disclosing that project scope returns a different shape (groups of colliding endpoints + counts) and that specId is ignored. It also mentions the set_context prerequisite. No contradiction; the added behavioral detail is useful but doesn't cover return format or pagination behavior.

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 redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, then the optional filter, then the project-scope nuance and prerequisite. Every clause carries information.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main behavior, the special project scope, and the context requirement. It doesn't describe the return format for the default spec scope, which might be helpful, but the schema covers pagination and the sibling list tools suggest a standard array response. Slightly incomplete but strong overall.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning to the 'scope' parameter by explaining what 'project' returns and that it overrides specId. It also clarifies versionId's filtering role. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 ('endpoints of an API specification'), with optional filters. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_specs and get_endpoint by naming the resource and the project-scope alternative.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use project scope ('to look across every spec in the project') and what it returns (conflicts and counts, not full list), plus notes specId is ignored and that set_context must be called first. Provides clear exclusions and prerequisites.

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