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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the multi-protocol scope (HTTP/GraphQL/socket), which is contextual rather than behavioral; it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or truncation on a service with many operations. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose with scope, entry condition, then two explicit routing alternatives. Front-loaded with the purpose and free of restated name/title 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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place return shape could be signaled; it names the protocol kinds but not what a row contains or how large a result set can get. Otherwise it is complete for a read-only, filtered listing tool whose annotations already cover safety. Minor gap keeps it just short of 5.

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% and all five parameters carry substantive descriptions (repo resolution, method label semantics including the UNKNOWN case, service fuzzy match, path_contains substring). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (list the operations one service exposes) and enumerates the exact scope it covers: HTTP endpoints, GraphQL fields, socket events. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from sibling listers like get_endpoint_types or get_operation without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('call it when unsure which operations a service has or whether one exists') and then routes to two named alternatives with the condition that selects each: get_endpoint_types for types of a known endpoint, get_operation for producer/consumers of a known operation. This is a complete when-to-use / when-not-to-use map.

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