list_update_missing_endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations and schema: the response envelope ({total, offset, has_more, items}), the enforced limit ceiling of 200 (schema only shows default 20), and the fact that `contains` filtering happens server-side on item fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then response shape, then filter semantics; little waste. Slightly dense but each clause carries information an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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 usefully documents the pagination envelope and the max limit, and it clarifies the ambiguous `contains` param. The remaining gap is the meaning and expected format of the required package_id/version_id identifiers, which an agent must still infer.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet only `contains` (with example field targets) and `limit` (max 200) receive explanation. The three required parameters org_id, package_id and version_id, plus `offset`, are left completely unexplained, so compensation is partial.

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 with a qualifying scope: endpoints missing one particular update package version. This implicitly distinguishes it from the loosely-scoped sibling list_missing_updates, but no sibling is named or explicitly excluded, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Provides a real operational hint ('check total before paging through everything') and explains that `contains` is a server-side text filter, which implies when the filter is worth using. However, it never says when to choose this tool over list_missing_updates or get_endpoint_missing_updates, so usage is only implied.

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