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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by describing the return contents (count and URL list) and the suggested workflow with aw_alerts. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or auth, but for a zero-parameter list operation this is a minor gap.

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 with no waste: the action comes first, followed by return contents, then a practical use case. 'Read-only' repeats the annotation, but it is short and does not bloat the description.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with annotations already covering safety, the description fully equips an agent: it defines scope, output, and how to use it alongside a sibling tool. No output schema exists, so the explicit mention of 'count' and 'URLs' is important and present.

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 are no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description's mention of 'registry names' and 'full endpoint list (URLs)' gives context about what the returned data will contain, which is sufficient for an empty-schema tool.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('endpoints in the Agent Watch census'), and the key output ('registry names', 'full endpoint list (URLs)'). The sentence about combining with aw_alerts helps an agent understand what this tool is not—the alert-based view of endpoint status.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: list all monitored endpoints and combine with aw_alerts to find dead endpoints. It does not explicitly enumerate when to use aw_census, aw_check_endpoint, or aw_health, but the intended use case is concrete and actionable.

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