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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is not obligated to restate that. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context about data handling: secrets are never returned and only a `secret_configured` boolean is exposed, which is important for an agent reasoning about sensitive data. It does not mention pagination or rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the one non-obvious caveat about secret handling. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and the description still flags the one return detail that matters (secret_configured). Annotations cover safety semantics. What's missing for full completeness is any guidance on auth failure behavior, result volume, or pagination.

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 0% and the description never mentions the single required parameter, seller_api_key. Its name is largely self-explanatory, but the description provides no compensation for the coverage gap (no auth semantics, no scope implications).

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 ('proxy endpoints this seller has registered'), with the possessive scoping making clear it returns the caller's own registrations rather than a global search. This implicitly separates it from siblings like seller_register_endpoint and partner_proxy_search.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to inspect endpoints you already registered, but the description names no alternatives (e.g., partner_proxy_search for other parties' endpoints) and states no prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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