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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results carry source associations/evidence and may list operations that are not actually reachable at runtime. It says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination.

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 the core action, and the caveat is placed where it will be read before calling. The phrase 'with source associations and evidence' is slightly opaque but not wasteful padding.

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?

With no output schema and one entirely undocumented parameter, the description leaves the agent without a model of what it will get back or how to narrow results. For a discovery tool that likely feeds downstream call_endpoint invocations, it should at least say what the query filters on and roughly what each list entry contains.

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% for the sole 'query' parameter, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate at all — it never explains what 'query' matches (operation name, path, source?) or what happens when it is omitted. Only the schema's type and maxLength give the agent any signal.

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+resource ('List API operations') and adds that returned items carry source associations and evidence. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_endpoint or call_endpoint, but the list-versus-single-fetch distinction is inferable from the name and phrasing.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. The caveat about contract inclusion not guaranteeing live source availability hints that this tool is a discovery step before call_endpoint, but that routing is left for the agent to infer.

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