list_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it works WITHOUT an API key, returns a catalog of operations, and also includes supported Amazon marketplace domains. This meaningfully enriches what the structured data alone conveys.

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?

Three sentences deliver the core purpose, high-value context (no API key), usage guidance, and additional return data (marketplace domains) with no wasted words. The most important behavioral instruction is front-loaded early.

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 discovery tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, when to call it, and the fact that no API key is needed. The agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and to know what follow-up action to take.

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 is only one optional parameter, and the schema already documents it fully with an enum and a clear description ('Get the usage guide for one operation instead of the whole catalog'). The tool description adds no new parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List all Easyparser operations available in this server,' and goes further to describe the content types (parameters, credit costs, example use cases). It also differentiates itself from the 16 operation-specific sibling tools by positioning itself as the discovery/catalog tool.

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 explicitly says to call this tool first and to use it when unsure which tool fits the user's question, which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context strongly implies that this is a pre-discovery step before selecting a sibling operation.

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