list_apis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the catalog's scope (103 endpoints, 21 categories) and its entry-point role, but says nothing about return shape, pagination, or result ordering for a 103-item catalog. That is a real gap for a listing tool, though the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what it lists, catalog size, discovery role) is front-loaded. Every sentence carries weight.

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 no-required-parameter, read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The only shortfall is not clarifying how results are returned or how it relates to search_apis when results are large.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the three main filter axes (category, keyword, read/write) without adding syntax or semantics, and it omits include_legacy entirely, so it does not exceed what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('List QQ bot APIs from the local catalog') and sizes the catalog (103 endpoints, 21 categories), which tells an agent exactly what it is enumerating. It clarifies the discovery role ('first call to discover what the bot can do'), though it stops short of naming the near-sibling search_apis, so an agent must still infer the boundary between the two.

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?

'This is the first call to discover what the bot can do' gives clear context for when to reach for it, and the filter axes hint at refinement. However, there is no explicit exclusion or routing rule versus search_apis, query_api, get_api, or list_categories, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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