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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond that: the returned fields, the full set of lifecycle states, and the cost implication (dedicated endpoints billed by the minute). It does not mention pagination or result limits, so it falls short of full behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded; no filler. The trailing 'Together: GET /endpoints' is a mild redundancy of the name/title for a listing tool, but it is short enough not to hurt readability.

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 no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the state vocabulary, and a practical filter scenario, while annotations carry the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the combined intent of mine=true plus type=dedicated (account ownership and minute-based billing), which the per-field schema text does not convey. usage_type is still only explained by the schema.

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 verb and resource ('List endpoints') and even enumerates the fields returned (model, owner, state) with the possible state values. It is clearly a listing operation, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling get_endpoint for single-endpoint retrieval, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives concrete guidance for a specific scenario: 'Use mine=true and type=dedicated to see what is running on your account and billing by the minute.' That tells the agent when the filter combination is appropriate, though it offers no explicit when-not or alternative tool routing.

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