List API endpoints

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 usefully discloses that the result is a complete enumeration of public endpoints including webhooks and lists the fields returned per entry, but it says nothing about ordering, size, or whether internal/private endpoints are excluded beyond the word 'public'.

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?

Two tight sentences: the returned content is front-loaded, then the filter options. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the structured fields.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool this is nearly complete: scope, payload fields, and the full tag vocabulary are all present despite the absence of an output schema. Minor gaps remain around ordering and invalid-tag behavior.

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% and the schema defines no enum, yet the description enumerates all ten accepted tag values (health, orders, order-status, erp, rejected, customers, products, customer-products, email-watcher, webhooks) and marks the filter optional. It does not say what happens with an unrecognized tag or confirm only one tag may be supplied.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Every public AIOTIC endpoint') and enumerates what each entry contains (method, path, summary, auth), plus the added coverage of outbound webhooks. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_endpoint, 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?

Usage is implied by the optional tag filter, which signals this is the browsing/discovery tool. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion relative to get_endpoint, get_schema, or get_example, so the agent must infer the routing.

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