list_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'list' implies a non-destructive read. It usefully discloses that host and path use contains-matching, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not state pagination defaults, ordering, or that no writes occur, leaving some gaps.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one line, then lists parameters compactly with no filler. The Args block is slightly verbose but every entry maps to a real parameter and earns its place.

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 explained, and all params are documented. However, the absence of annotations plus no usage guidance leaves the description only minimally complete for a seven-parameter tool.

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 description must carry parameter meaning — and it does, documenting all seven with intent (e.g., product_id, host, protocol, limit, offset). The '(contains)' annotations add matching semantics the bare schema does not convey.

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 endpoints with optional filters'), so the agent immediately knows it retrieves a collection. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_endpoint, but the list/get split is self-evident from the name and description.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over get_endpoint or which filters are appropriate for which scenario. The description merely says filters are optional without stating conditions, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.

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