migros_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' plus the returned fields convey that this is a read-only lookup whose payload includes each endpoint's auth requirement, and 'verified' hints the catalogue is curated/static, but nothing is said about result volume, pagination, or whether the catalogue changes at runtime.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence and the parameter note follows in a short args block. Every element, including the example prefixes, earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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-value detail is unnecessary, and a one-optional-parameter lookup tool is simple enough that the description covers what an agent needs. The only shortfall is the absent guidance on how this catalogue relates to migros_request for actual invocation.

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 explain the single parameter – and it does: 'service' is described as an optional prefix filter with five concrete example prefixes (product-discovery, retentionapi, checkout, shopping-list, onelist, recipe). That is genuinely more informative than the bare string schema, though it doesn't state matching case-sensitivity or behavior for non-matching prefixes.

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 the verified endpoint catalogue', and parenthetically names the record fields it returns (method, path, auth requirement). This makes the tool's nature as a static discovery/catalogue lookup clear and separable from action-oriented siblings like migros_request, though it never explicitly names that alternative.

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 only implicit: a 'catalogue' tool is understood to be for discovering available endpoints, likely before calling migros_request. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or statement of the relationship to the sibling request tool, so an agent must infer the workflow.

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