list_registrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that this is a 'live Status API read' and 'runtime counterpart,' providing context beyond annotations that it reads current state. No contradictions.

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?

Very concise: two sentences for purpose and context, plus arg explanations in a bullet-like format. Purpose is front-loaded, no wasted words.

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?

Given 5 parameters, useful annotations, and an output schema (not needing return description), the description covers the live view distinction, explains all parameters, and contrasts with sibling tools. No essential information is missing.

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 description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters with detailed semantics: alias_contains is case-insensitive substring, protocol lists specific values, and pagination controls include fetch_all for walking all pages. This adds substantial value 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?

Description explicitly states 'List endpoints currently registered to the platform (live Status API read).' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('endpoints registered'), and distinguishes from siblings by calling itself 'runtime counterpart to the device records' and 'not the configured allow-list,' contrasting with tools like list_devices and list_registration_aliases.

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?

Description provides clear context: it is for live registrations now, as opposed to device records or allow-lists. While it doesn't name alternative tools or state explicit 'when not to use,' the contrast with 'configured allow-list' and 'device records' implies when this tool is appropriate.

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