Api

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the exact categories of routes returned and the return format ('Returns JSON'), which matters since no output schema exists. It does not mention auth needs, pagination, or ordering, but the annotated baseline keeps the bar reasonable.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope detail, usage, and return format. The middle enumeration is dense but each clause carries distinct scope information, so little is wasted.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with a fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is listed, why to use it, the alternative for invocation, and the return format. Missing only minor operational details such as auth or pagination behavior.

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?

One parameter (`base_url`) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no parameter-level information, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 all API endpoints') and elaborates its scope: platform core routes plus dynamically generated entity CRUD/public routes and workflow-triggered routes. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `fetch`, so an agent can tell what this does versus calling an endpoint.

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?

Gives a clear condition ('Use it to give app developers endpoint URLs') and names the alternative for a related need ('to call one, use `fetch`'). There is no explicit negative scope (e.g., when not to use it versus `docs`), so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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