list_service_endpoints

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it lists all endpoints and mentions the optional OData query, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior with large results. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose and one for the parameter, with no filler. The key information is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to process.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no required fields, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose and parameter usage. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed in the description. Minor gaps like edge cases or pagination do not significantly detract.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by providing an example OData query syntax, adding significant meaning beyond the schema which only defines the parameter as a string. This helps agents understand how to use the parameter effectively.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'service endpoints' with clear scope 'exposed by deployed integration flows'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'list_integration_packages' or 'list_iflow_resources' by specifying the resource type.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. However, the purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer usage context. The lack of exclusion criteria or sibling differentiation prevents a higher score.

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