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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the lifecycle state values and that dedicated running endpoints are billed by the minute, but it says nothing about pagination, result size, or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences lead with the core purpose, followed by a compact flag for the underlying HTTP route. Slightly terse but every clause carries information.

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 read-only list tool with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and a common invocation pattern. The absence of pagination or ordering notes is a minor gap given the project's simplicity.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the mine/type filters inside a usage example, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific verb+resource ('List endpoints') and enumerates the returned fields (model, owner, state), so an agent can distinguish it from sibling get_endpoint/create_endpoint/start_endpoint. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

It gives concrete conditional guidance ('Use mine=true and type=dedicated to see what is running on your account and billing by the minute'), which tells the agent when a particular invocation is appropriate. It doesn't state outright exclusions or explicitly route to get_endpoint for single-endpoint lookups.

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