lcu_endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: the catalog is derived from /help on first use and cached per patch, telling the agent to expect a cold-start cost and patch-scoped freshness. It stops short of describing result size, ordering, or how `limit` is applied.

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 with the core action and the matching rule front-loaded, plus the caching note as a parenthetical. No filler and nothing that repeats the schema.

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 read-only search over 3 params with no output schema, the description covers the data source, freshness, and matching semantics but omits what a result looks like and what the two optional params do. Adequate to invoke, not fully self-contained.

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 only 33%, so the description must carry weight; it explains the required `query` (AND-matching over path/function-name tokens) which the schema only illustrates by example. However, `limit` and `method` are left completely undefined in both schema and description, so the compensation is partial.

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: it searches the LCU endpoint catalog of the installed client. That is clearly distinct from the visual/navigation siblings, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling `lcu` (which presumably invokes an endpoint rather than searching for one), leaving the search-vs-call split implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the `lcu` sibling or any alternative, and no prerequisites. The only guidance is a matching constraint ("Every word must match the path or function name"), which governs how to phrase a query, not when the tool is the right choice.

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