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 tool is known to be read-only with a bounded scope. The description adds the concept of 'optional filters' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as sorting, pagination, or the format of the returned list. Given the annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate – the description provides minimal added 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the domain context ('[WalmartMarketplace]') and immediately states the core action and resource. There is zero redundancy or wasted words, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 (read-only, all parameters optional and documented, output schema present), the description is quite complete. It could arguably mention that it returns a list of operations or that it is a discovery tool, but the output schema covers the return structure, and the tool's purpose is clear. The only minor gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use it, but that is more about usage guidelines than contextual completeness of the operation itself.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters (tag, query, domain, method). The description's mention of 'optional filters' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('List') and resource ('OpenAPI operations'), and mentions optional filters, which clearly conveys the tool's purpose. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'describe_endpoint' and 'call_endpoint' by the action and resource, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., 'describe_endpoint', 'call_endpoint'). It does not mention that it is a discovery tool for finding operations before calling them, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters.

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