ise_ers_list_restidstore

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the operation is paginated, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, how many items are returned per page by default, or whether there are rate limits or ordering guarantees. For a listing tool that could return large datasets, the pagination behavior is mentioned but not elaborated on (e.g., default page size, how to page through results).

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 two short sentences with zero waste - efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. It states the action and the pagination trait concisely. However, it's arguably under-specified given the parameter coverage gap and missing behavioral details, so it's not at the highest tier of quality.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should disclose more behavioral context. The deployment parameter suggests multi-deployment support, but the description doesn't clarify that. It also doesn't mention that a get/search variant exists for more specific retrieval, or describe expected return format. For a multi-deployment, paginated listing tool, richer context would materially help an agent select and use 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 low at 33% - only the 'deployment' parameter has a description in the schema, while 'page' and 'size' have none. The tool description itself adds nothing about parameters beyond noting pagination. The deployment parameter is well-documented in the schema with examples and fallback behavior, but page/size semantics (e.g., range, relationship) are entirely absent from both schema and description. With 33% coverage, the description should compensate more for the two undocumented parameters.

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 'List all REST ID Stores. Paginated.' clearly states the verb (List), resource (REST ID Stores), and scope (all), distinguishing it from the sibling tools like ise_ers_get_restidstore (singular get) and ise_ers_search_restidstore (search). The pagination mention is a helpful extra detail. Though terse, the purpose is unambiguous and effectively separable from sibling tool names.

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 implies this is the tool for enumerating REST ID Stores (as opposed to get for single item or search for filtering), which provides clear context by virtue of sibling naming conventions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, and doesn't mention that the get version exists for retrieving a specific store. The pagination hint slightly clarifies usage but there's no explicit guidance of when not to use this tool.

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