Checking endpoint status

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description merely restates that it retrieves information, adding no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It doesn't disclose potential limitations, edge cases, or behavior like missing data or empty results.

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 description is very short (two sentences), but the first sentence ('Checking endpoint status') is redundant with the title. The second sentence conveys the main purpose. It could be restructured to combine both into one more informative sentence, but it's not verbose.

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?

Given the complexity (3 optional parameters, output schema exists) and the relatively common task of checking endpoint status, the description lacks detail on what 'onboarded status' means, how the output is structured, or when this tool is appropriate. It does not fully prepare the agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage or meaning beyond the schema, so it neither adds nor detracts. This is adequate but not improved.

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 uses a clear verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('information if any endpoints were added'), which indicates the tool checks onboarded status. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'get_endpoint' or 'list_endpoints', which might also involve endpoint status. The title 'Checking endpoint status' is too generic, but overall the purpose is understandable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions for use, exclusions, or contrast with other listing or retrieval tools. The agent has to infer from the name and description without explicit direction.

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