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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. "From the platform DB" hints that results come from stored state rather than a live probe, which is a useful nuance, but the meaning of "live," whether results are paged or cached, and what happens when no live endpoint exists are all undisclosed.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but it is a single sentence fragment rather than a structured statement. The brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing, since nothing about scope or behavior is actually conveyed.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It should at minimum state the return shape (a list of endpoint records), clarify what qualifies as "live," and route the agent away from the probe/status/list siblings.

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%, including an enum with per-value docs and a default for chain, so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about agentId or chain, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns no credit above baseline.

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 text is a noun fragment, not a verb+resource statement: it never says it lists or returns endpoints. It essentially restates the tool name (endpoint_active = "only live endpoints") with the added qualifier "from the platform DB," and it does nothing to separate it from siblings like actora_endpoint_list, actora_endpoint_status, or actora_endpoint_probe.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent must guess whether to call this, actora_endpoint_list, actora_endpoint_status, or actora_endpoint_best_mcp; the only implicit signal is a "live only" filter.

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