select

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining pattern matching rules (case-insensitive, wildcard method) and the behavior on zero matches (returns available condition hints). It also clarifies that this tool does not return details itself, which is a significant behavioral trait. Some aspects like error handling are not mentioned, but the provided information is substantive.

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 and well-structured. It presents the main purpose first, then explains the pattern format, the zero-match hint behavior, and the follow-up action with get_batch. No unnecessary information is included.

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 complexity (4 optional parameters, no required), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use it, and what to do next. It does not explain the output schema, but since an output schema exists, that is acceptable per the criteria. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and usage.

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 zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that patterns are glob patterns with specific format (e.g., 'GET /v1/*'), and that tag and security are used for filtering. It gives enough meaning for the parameters, though it could elaborate more on tag and security specifics. Overall, it adds meaningful semantics to the input schema.

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 that the tool filters and selects endpoint keys and schema names using glob patterns and authentication/tag criteria. It specifies the resource (endpoints and schemas) and the action (filter/select) with sufficient detail.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool versus get_batch by stating that after selection, get_batch should be used for details. It also explains the pattern format and the behavior on zero matches, which aids in troubleshooting. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_endpoints or get_endpoint, but the filtering purpose is implied.

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