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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds substantial context: the project scope returns structurally identical groups (not a full list), includeUsageCounts is 'slightly slower', every entry carries rowVersion to avoid extra get_schema calls, and the tool 'requires project context.' These details go well beyond the annotation and prepare the agent for real-world 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?

The description is compact despite carrying dense information. The core purpose is front-loaded, the alternative (get_schema) is named, and every sentence adds distinct value: project-scope behavior, rowVersion benefit, and usage guidance. No fluff or repetition; it reads as a well-edited paragraph.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description covers all critical aspects: the default spec-scope list, the project-scope alternative, the rowVersion hint for update workflows, and the prerequisite of project context. An agent can correctly invoke the tool and interpret the returned data without missing key behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains how the scope parameter changes the entire response shape (groups vs. full list, specId ignored), and it clarifies that includeUsageCounts affects performance. These are valuable semantics not present in the JSON schema properties.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'List all schemas of an API specification.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from get_schema ('for one schema with its full definition use get_schema') and explains the project-scope variant that returns groups rather than a full list. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use this to browse schemas or find a schema id,' and when not to: 'for one schema with its full definition use get_schema.' It also documents the project-scope behavior, including that specId is ignored, giving clear routing criteria without needing to open other tools.

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