list_operations

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, non-open-world read operation. The description adds useful catalog-field and filter behavior, but it does not discuss service-not-found behavior, pagination, or other operational constraints.

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 brief and front-loaded, moving directly from the resource being listed to the returned fields and then to filter semantics. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 and read-only annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool. Minor gaps remain around missing-service errors and explicit routing to sibling tools, but the core call context is present.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains search as a name/description substring or wildcard, and identifies kind and tag as filters; service is implicitly clear from 'catalog of a profile service.'

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 identifies a specific resource: operations in a profile service's catalog, and it lists the fields returned (name, kind, needs session, parameter names). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_services or describe_operation.

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 implied by the service catalog context, and the description explains how search/kind/tag filtering works. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like describe_operation or list_services.

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