get_sparql_endpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It thoroughly describes the return value structure (dict with databases and endpoints mappings), which is sufficient for a simple read-only tool. However, it does not mention any authentication or rate limits, which are not critical for this tool.

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 concise: three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return details. No unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple with no parameters, and the description covers the return structure fully. It is complete for the intended use of discovering endpoints, and fits well with sibling tools like run_sparql and list_databases.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete (100%). Baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and the return structure documentation is helpful.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves available SPARQL endpoints for RDF Portal, with a detailed return structure. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like run_sparql (which runs queries) and list_databases (which lists databases, not endpoints).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as before using run_sparql or to discover endpoints. While the purpose implies a setup step, no direct guidance or exclusions are provided.

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