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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only the owner scoping (endpoints belong to the token's guest/session); it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether empty results are possible. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate but the added context is thin.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the resource stated up front. It is efficient, though its terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal concision.

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?

The tool is simple: one required token parameter, no output schema, and annotations that fully cover the read-only behavior. The description says enough to call it but omits anything about the shape or volume of results, which is the main remaining gap for a list operation.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains that guest_token is the private owner token sent via X-Guest-Token. The description only restates the ownership relationship ("guest's/session's") and adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond 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?

The description has a specific verb and resource ("Lists ... endpoints") and scopes it to the guest/session owner, so the basic operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings such as get_endpoint (single endpoint retrieval) or list_sites/list_events, and "guest's/session's" leaves the owner-scoping rule only implied rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_endpoint or the other list_* tools, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the token being required. The agent must infer that this is the bulk-retrieval counterpart to the singular getter.

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