list_endpoint_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, mention permission/auth requirements, or describe pagination defaults or ordering. Only the incidental 'limit'/'offset' params hint at paging.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and waste-free, but the Args block is low-value filler that mostly echoes parameter names, and there is no additional context to justify the structure. Adequate, not tight.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. However, with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is thin on behavior and defaults for a five-parameter list tool, leaving the agent with only the bare minimum to invoke it.

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%, so the Args block is the only documentation. It lists all five parameters, but entries like 'Filter by endpoint ID' and 'Filter by finding ID' largely restate the parameter names; only 'Results per page' and 'Pagination offset' add real meaning. It fills the gap minimally rather than fully compensating.

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 clear verb+resource ('List endpoint statuses') and clarifies the concept with the parenthetical '(relationship between endpoints and findings)', which helps distinguish it from list_endpoints and list_findings. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling it is not, 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the many sibling list tools (list_endpoints, list_findings, get_endpoint), the description never says when an agent should reach for this relationship view instead of another call. Usage is only implied by the name.

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