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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond them: pagination is fixed at 100 and search requires every word to match operationId, path, or summary. It does not discuss permissions or response metadata.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by pagination, search behavior, and module-source guidance. No sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the returned fields and states pagination size and search matching. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe pagination metadata or whether total counts are returned.

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 the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning to 'search' by specifying all-words matching across operationId, path, and summary, and clarifies where module values come from; 'page' remains covered only by 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 operations of one API module, with the returned fields named. The module scope distinguishes it from the broader search_operations sibling, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Explains that module names come from capability_map and that search filters only within the selected module. It does not explicitly say when to use search_operations instead, nor mention list_modules as an alternative module source even though the schema does.

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