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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the data source (platform DB) and that non-active endpoints are returned, which is real context beyond the schema. It omits ordering, pagination, and whether results are scoped to the agent or global, which matter for a list tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope qualifier immediately attached; nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about result shape, volume, and scoping. It is complete on what is returned conceptually, incomplete on how it is returned.

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 100% and the chain parameter already documents its enum, default, and the Sepolia exclusion. The description adds no meaning about agentId or chain, so baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 and scope: all registered endpoints from the platform DB, explicitly noting that pending/failed entries are included. That inclusion note implicitly separates it from actora_endpoint_active, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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: the '(includes pending/failed)' clause suggests this is the exhaustive view rather than the filtered active/best-MCP views. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement and no named alternative among actora_endpoint_active, actora_endpoint_status, or actora_endpoint_best_mcp.

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