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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context about the 'regardless of their tag' behavior and details the return fields (IDs, HTTP methods, paths, summaries, deprecation status). It does not contradict annotations and provides additional insight, though it does not cover potential edge cases like pagination or missing IDs.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, when to use, parameters, returns). It is concise, wastes no words, and front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, alternative tools, parameter format, and return contents. No further context seems necessary.

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 schema only describes collectionId as 'required,' while the description specifies it is 'The 32-character MD5 hash ID of the collection,' adding format/type context beyond the schema. This adds meaningful value for correct parameter usage.

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 explicitly states 'Lists all endpoints within a specific collection, regardless of their tag.' This is a specific verb+resource pair with a clarifying qualifier, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool endpoint_by_tag which filters by tag.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' section lists concrete scenarios, and it explicitly directs to the alternative: 'For a filtered view by tag within a collection, use `endpoint_by_tag` instead.' This is explicit when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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