list_api_methods

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derived facts: no credentials are needed, planned methods are documentation-only, and no generic execution tool exists — real behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Five short, front-loaded statements with no filler; the core purpose leads and the constraints follow. It is appropriately sized for a discovery tool, though the telegraphic phrasing slightly hampers readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is pagination/filtering behavior for limit, offset, and query, which an agent would need to page through results 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only clarifies the value domains for two of five parameters (api and status). It says nothing about limit, offset, or query, leaving pagination and filtering semantics undocumented anywhere.

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: discovering pinned Google Play API methods, with the allowed api values (androidpublisher, playdeveloperreporting, storage) and statuses (implemented or coming_soon) enumerated. It is clearly distinct from the sibling list_releases/list_reviews/report-file tools, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the distinction.

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 only implied: the note that planned methods are documentation only and that 'there is no generic API execution tool' steers the agent away from expecting execution, which is useful constraint-setting. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. the sibling listing tools or when-not-to-call guidance.

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