list_endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful workflow context (ids are reusable downstream) but says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape beyond what the schema/output schema provide, so it adds only modest value over structured data.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed immediately by the actionable handoff. Zero filler.

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100%-documented parameters, the description only needs to establish purpose and workflow, which it does. A mention of pagination or that filtering is available would make it fully self-sufficient, but nothing critical is missing.

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% and every parameter (api, tag, limit, offset, query, method, platform) is documented in the schema itself, including the platform-vs-api distinction and offset chaining. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List OpenAPI operations') plus default scope ('across every api'). It names the downstream siblings describe_endpoint and call_endpoint, which helps situate it, though it doesn't contrast against them as alternatives (e.g. vs. refresh_specs or download_file).

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?

Clearly signals the discovery-first workflow: returned operation ids 'can be passed straight to describe_endpoint or call_endpoint.' That gives an agent a concrete reason to call this before those tools, but there are no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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