list_endpoints

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the pagination envelope shape, the default and maximum page size, and the fact that `contains` is server-side filtering on item fields. It stops short of noting ordering, permissions, or what happens with an unknown org_id.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then return shape, then the trickiest parameter. The CVE/product example for `contains` is slightly tangential for an endpoints listing and costs a few words, but nothing is filler.

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 must explain returns, and it does so via the {total, offset, has_more, items} envelope. For a read-only list tool with one required id this is close to sufficient, lacking only item-field detail and result ordering.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely does: it documents `limit` (default 20, max 200), the paging role of `offset`, and the exact semantics of `contains` as a server-side filter on the items' own fields. `org_id` is left unexplained, though its meaning is self-evident from context.

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 all managed endpoints (computers)') plus the scope ('in an organization'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_endpoint without opening a schema. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings, so it falls short of the top mark.

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?

Usage is implied rather than spelled out: it advises checking `total` before paging and explains what `contains` filters, which helps correct invocation. It never says when to prefer this tool over list_endpoint_group_members, list_vulnerability_endpoints, or search, so no explicit alternative routing is provided.

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