List EDI scopes

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: results come live from PASTA with an API key and from a dated snapshot without one, with a mirror at edi://reference/scopes. It stops short of describing how large the list is or how stale the snapshot is.

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 tight sentences: purpose and payload first, then the API-key/snapshot caveat, then the next-step routing. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

With an output schema present, the return values need no further explanation, yet the description still summarizes them. Auth-dependent behavior and downstream usage are both covered, leaving nothing essential missing for a correctly-invoked call.

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?

The single 'kind' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its enum meanings, so the schema does the heavy lifting (100% coverage). The description adds no further explanation of the kind filter, though it does clarify that scope names/site codes serve as identifiers across tools.

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 repository's scopes) and enumerates the returned fields: name, kind, LTER site code, location and package counts on PASTA and DataONE. The example scope IDs (knb-lter-hbr, edi) make it immediately distinguishable from the sibling list/get tools.

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?

Explicitly frames this as a discovery step and routes onward: 'Next: call edi_search_packages(scope=...) or edi_list_identifiers(scope=...).' It also warns that 'Scope arguments elsewhere also accept these site codes and names,' which tells the agent why to call this before other tools.

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