api_enum

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and 'List' is consistent with that. The description adds the partial-match and empty-input semantics, but discloses nothing about result size, rate limits, or whether member values are included alongside enum names.

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, purpose first, parameter behavior second, with concrete examples inline. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the parameter behavior is fully covered. For a one-parameter lookup tool this is close to complete; only the absence of any sibling differentiation keeps it from the top score.

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 0% and the single 'name' parameter has no schema text at all, so the description must carry it — and it does: full name, partial enum/member name, or empty for everything. It only lacks edge details like case sensitivity or matching behavior when a partial string is ambiguous.

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 the values of an API enum') and grounds it with concrete examples (eUnits, eMatType, eLoadPatternType). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby api_search/api_describe siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains how to invoke it (give a full enum name, a partial name, or leave empty to list all), which is useful operational guidance. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus api_search or api_describe, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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