List Simple API endpoints

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape well (tags, summaries, tool-name mapping, write/destructive risk flags), which is genuinely useful. But it never states that the call is read-only/side-effect free, whether the catalog is paginated or complete, or how large the response typically 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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the returned fields; no filler. It is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement of the tool's action, which slightly weakens the lead.

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 two-optional-param discovery tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it explains what comes back and the fields are self-describing. What is missing is the operational context — that this is a meta/discovery endpoint meant to be consulted before choosing among the many sibling tools, and any note on catalog completeness.

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 100%, with both `tag` and `onlyReadable` documented including an example value, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, though 'write/destructive risk flags' loosely explains why `onlyReadable` exists.

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 names a specific resource — a catalog of MarketplaceSimpleAPI 1.0.0 endpoints — and enumerates the payload (tags, summaries, MCP tool names, risk flags), so an agent can tell it apart from the domain-specific siblings. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, so the 'list' action is only implied by the title, not the description itself.

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 call this versus the ~60 domain tools, and no mention of the discovery workflow it enables (e.g., 'call this first to find the right tool'). The only usage-adjacent hint is the phrase 'dedicated MCP tool names (if any)', which hints at a routing role but never states it.

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