list_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description discloses the filter capabilities (category, resource, method, reads-only) and the API version (v0), which is useful, but does not describe pagination behavior, output volume, or whether results are ordered. It does convey listing/discovery semantics effectively, though the scale of results is not addressed.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the optional filter capabilities, then workflow guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero waste.

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 discovery/listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, workflow linkage to sibling tools, and API/version differentiation. It lacks explicit note on return volume/pagination, which is a minor gap for a listing tool that could return many endpoints. Overall it is well-rounded and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, but the parameters are wrapped in a 'params' object with individual property descriptions in the schema that are reasonably self-explanatory (method, category, resource, reads_only each have filtering descriptions with examples). The description adds workflow context but the parameter meanings are largely conveyed through the schema's property-level descriptions rather than the tool description itself.

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 states 'List the available AppFolio Database API endpoints' with specific output fields (operationId, method, path, category, description). It distinguishes this discovery tool from siblings by naming describe_endpoint (for params) and call_endpoint (for execution), and explicitly contrasts the Database API with the Reporting API (list_reports/run_report).

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use this to discover which endpoint to use, then call describe_endpoint for its parameters and call_endpoint to execute it.' It also names the alternative toolset for Reporting API, giving clear when-to-use vs when-not-to-use context.

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