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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description's only additional contribution is the 'non-CRUD' scoping, which is more purpose than behavior; it says nothing about pagination defaults or result ordering.

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 tight sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the optional filters second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not describe the return shape, pagination behavior, or defaults for limit/offset, which matter for a list tool with unbounded results. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 4-parameter listing endpoint.

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 only 25% — entity_id is documented but project_id, limit and offset are not. The description recovers the meaning of project_id and entity_id as filters, but 'limit' and 'offset' remain entirely undefined, so the compensation is partial.

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') plus a precisely scoped resource ('custom, non-CRUD endpoint routes'), which cleanly separates it from CRUD-oriented siblings like update_endpoint/delete_endpoint. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 usage via 'Optionally filter by project_id or entity_id', giving the agent a sense of how to narrow results, but it offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g. get vs list). Implied usage only.

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