OpenFolio RO catalog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output (JSON of endpoints and MCP tools), the authentication mechanism (X-API-Key) and that the MCP process already has the key, plus the fact that no inputs are required. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the tool name and 'read-only' phrasing strongly imply it, and no side effects are expected.

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 four short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose ('Discovery: JSON of...') and immediately follows with the when-to-use, auth, and input requirements. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant or verbose.

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 simple zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers what is returned (path + summary and tool names), when to invoke it, the auth context, and that no inputs are needed. An agent can call it without any further clarification.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description states 'No inputs,' which directly confirms this, aligning with the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. It adds no confusion and succinctly communicates that no arguments are needed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns a JSON catalog of all read-only HTTP APIs and the four MCP tools. The verb 'Discovery' and resource 'all OpenFolio read-only HTTP APIs' distinguish it from siblings like ro_holdings or ro_logs, which are specific data tools rather than a meta-catalog.

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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Call this when unsure which RO endpoint exists.' This is direct and actionable. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the siblings are implied as the actual data tools to use once a specific endpoint is identified.

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