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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful provenance context ('read from the server's own routes'), implying live/authoritative data rather than a static list, but says nothing about result volume, truncation, or pagination for what is potentially a very large listing.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first defines the resource and its contents, the second routes the agent to the sibling tool and explains the filter. Zero filler and the most decision-relevant information (what it returns, when to use it) is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter reference listing with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and how to filter it. The only omission is guidance on result size or whether the endpoint list is returned in full, which matters given the breadth implied by 'every 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 0% and the lone `search` parameter has no schema description, so the description carries the burden — and it does: 'a word in the path or description' tells the agent exactly what the filter matches. It stops short of noting case sensitivity or partial-match behavior.

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 resource (every Seovyn API endpoint) and what the payload contains (method, path, what it does), plus the source (the server's own routes). An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from named siblings like seovyn_status or seovyn_whoami without opening any schema.

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 names the companion tool (seovyn_api_request) and the condition that selects this one: 'anything the named tools don't cover.' It also tells the agent how to narrow results via `search`, so both when-to-use and how-to-use are covered.

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