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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by specifying the output organization ('organized by path') and the compatibility with get-endpoint's input, which is useful behavioral context for an agent.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The primary function is front-loaded, and the follow-up workflow is stated efficiently without wasting words.

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 listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what is returned, how it is organized, and how to proceed. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered at 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4; the description correctly omits parameter details because none exist.

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 clearly states the tool lists all API paths, HTTP methods, and summaries, organized by path. This distinctively differentiates it from siblings like get-endpoint (specific endpoint) and search-endpoints (filtered lookup), leaving no ambiguity about the resource and verb.

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?

The description provides clear context for using this tool as an overview before drilling into a specific endpoint, and explicitly notes that results can be passed to get-endpoint. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search-endpoints, but the 'all paths' phrasing implies exhaustive listing as the primary use case.

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