list_feature_kinds

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing behavioral: no indication of whether the catalog is static or dynamic, how large the response is, or what a 'parameter spec' contains. The second paragraph is promotional copy about paid features rather than information about this call's behavior.

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 useful content is a single front-loaded sentence; the two following sentences and the embedded upgrade URL are marketing that consume roughly two-thirds of the description without helping the agent call the tool. That noise also risks the agent misreading tier limits as a constraint on this call.

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 zero-parameter enumeration tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it says what is enumerated and that specs are included. It does not sketch the return shape at all, and the ad copy displaces space that could have done so.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a full enumeration with no filtering arguments, which matches the empty 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Enumerate every supported feature kind with its parameter spec.' That is unambiguous and distinct from data tools like list_features or list_feature_branches. It stops short of naming a sibling it replaces, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_features, get_feature, or list_product_types. The remaining sentences are a Pro-tier upsell, not usage guidance. An agent gets no routing signal beyond the name.

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