List CoolerControl API endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the version pin (5.1.1), the fact that results are permission-scoped to the caller's token, and a preview of the endpoint categories returned. It doesn't describe the shape of each returned entry or pagination, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and filter hint last. The long category enumeration costs some space but doubles as a coverage preview that helps an agent decide whether this tool is relevant.

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?

A simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage; the description supplies purpose, scope, and the downstream consumer (call_api). It leaves the shape of each returned endpoint entry unspecified, but that is a minor gap for a discovery list.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'Filter by tag or text' mirrors them without adding format, combination, or default behavior. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Every CoolerControl 5.1.1 REST endpoint a token can call') and immediately ties it to its companion tool, call_api. The enumerated categories make clear it is a discovery catalog rather than an execution tool, which distinguishes it from every sibling in the list.

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?

The phrase 'for use with call_api' establishes the workflow: browse here, invoke there. Filtering by tag or text is also stated. What's missing is an explicit 'when not to use' (e.g., if you already know the endpoint, call call_api directly) or a note that results are limited to what the current token can access, though that is implied.

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