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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds tenant-isolation scope and a clarifying definition of the endpoint resource, but discloses no deeper behavior such as whether unpublished endpoints are included, default pagination behavior, or ordering. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded: 'List the dynamic endpoints belonging to the authenticated tenant.' The second sentence explains the dynamic-endpoint concept, which is informative and earns its place given the domain-specific term, though it describes the resource rather than the tool's behavior. It is appropriately sized with no wasted 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?

Given three optional, well-documented parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the structural supports are strong. The description adds the tenant scope and resource semantics, which are the main pieces an agent needs to select this tool correctly. Minor gaps remain (e.g., whether the list includes only published endpoints), but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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%, with each parameter (page_size, page_token, slug_prefix) already described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but none is needed given the complete schema coverage. No compensation is required.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the dynamic endpoints belonging to the authenticated tenant,' adding a tenant scope that clarifies the data boundary. It also explains what a dynamic endpoint is ('binds a public URL to a workflow; it is both a page render and a callable API route'), which aids resource comprehension. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_dynamic_endpoint_runs or get_dynamic_endpoint, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives enough context for an agent to infer when this applies: whenever a list of the tenant's dynamic endpoints is needed, given the 'list' verb and tenant scoping. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, such as directing agents to get_dynamic_endpoint for a single endpoint or list_dynamic_endpoint_runs for execution history. Usage is thus implied rather than stated, with no exclusions or alternative routing mentioned.

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