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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description does not need to carry the safety profile. It adds useful ownership scoping ('you published to your workspace'), but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or 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?

The description is extremely short and contains no filler, but it is a fragment rather than a structured tool description. It is concise yet under-specified, lacking the front-loaded verb that would make the statement self-contained.

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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and a fully described optional parameter, the minimum context is present. However, it does not explicitly clarify listing behavior, result scope, or how it differs from adjacent list_* tools, leaving clear gaps.

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?

There is one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents organizationId sufficiently. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but earns only the baseline.

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 identifies a specific resource class ('Remote-URL APIs you published to your workspace') but is only a noun phrase and does not explicitly state the listing action. The tool name and title supply the verb, so the purpose is inferable, but the description itself remains vague about what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as list_api_keys, list_hosted_functions, or create_user_api. The scope 'you published' is implied, but no explicit when/when-not or alternatives are provided.

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