List Endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the 200-line cap, the withholding message, and the rejection of unknown filter values. It doesn't describe pagination or the exact output schema, but the output schema exists and the description covers the key non-obvious behaviors.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose and output format, then covers limits, alternatives, and error behavior in three sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a read-only list tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is nearly complete. It covers the cap, the alternative tool, and error behavior. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe pagination or how to request more than 200 lines, but the description says the reply says how many were withheld and which filters would narrow it, which is sufficient guidance.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (app and method) with their allowed values. The description adds the behavior of unknown filter values being rejected by name, which is useful, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema's parameter documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Browse') and resource ('endpoint catalogue'), and specifies the output format (one line per endpoint with method, path, slug, title). It also distinguishes itself from search_endpoints by noting that search ranks by relevance, so an agent can clearly tell this is the list-all/browse tool.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For finding a specific endpoint, search_endpoints ranks by relevance instead.' It also explains the 200-line cap and that unknown filter values are rejected by name, giving clear behavioral context for when to use it.

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