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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new context on cost ('Always free to call') and scoping (every group in the catalog), though it omits pagination behavior for a list-everything call.

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 with zero filler: scope and returned fields first, then the routing rule. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. For a single optional-param browse tool, the description plus structured fields give the agent 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?

Only one optional parameter (category) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no extra detail about the filter, which is the expected baseline when structured data does the work.

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 (list/overview) and resource (API groups in the catalog), and enumerates the fields returned (name, category, summary, endpoint count, free tier). It clearly separates itself from search_apis, which targets a specific endpoint.

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use it to browse; use search_apis to find a specific endpoint.' The alternative sibling is named with the condition that selects it, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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