Public node directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds the HTTP GET method, reinforcing the read-only nature. However, it doesn't disclose pagination, response format, or any rate limits. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, and it front-loads the core information (public node directory) followed by the endpoint. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the parameter, expected response structure, or any filtering behavior. Annotations provide some safety context, but the description lacks enough detail for reliable invocation.

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?

The description completely ignores the 'region' parameter. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should explain what the parameter does, but it does not. The agent is left to guess that 'region' is a geographic filter, which is not guaranteed.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a public node directory and provides the GET endpoint, making it distinct from sibling tools like org_nodes_list or operator_nodes_list. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch', so the action is slightly implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as org_nodes_list or operator_nodes_list. The word 'Public' implies it covers public nodes, but no explicit exclusions or alternative references are given.

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