list_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations: it emphasizes that the tool 'Works WITHOUT an API key' and explains what it returns, including marketplace domains. This meaningfully helps an agent understand the tool's behavior and requirements.

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 sentences deliver all essential information with no filler. The primary function is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and return value highlights. Every clause 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?

For a low-complexity discovery tool with one optional parameter and strong read-only annotations, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what is listed, the auth requirement, when to call it, and additional return content. No critical gaps remain even without an output schema.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter, and the schema already provides a clear description and enum values. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail, but it does not need to because the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a catalog/discovery operation: 'List all Easyparser operations available in this server, with their parameters, credit costs, and example use cases.' It is unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tools, which are the actual operations being listed.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'call this first to understand what the server can do, or when you are unsure which tool fits the user's question.' It could be stronger by explicitly stating when not to use it or naming alternatives, but the intended entry-point role is clear.

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