list_apis

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: ~95 Conecta stubs in the catalog that are not callable yet, making unfiltered results mostly noise. It does not cover read-only/safety semantics or the meaning of the limit default, so gaps remain.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then supplies the two closed value sets compactly, then the caveat about stubs. Every sentence earns its place; the pipe-delimited value lists are dense but appropriately terse.

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 3-parameter, zero-required listing tool with an output schema already describing returns, the description supplies the missing enum values and the key filtering caveat. The only unaddressed item is the limit parameter, which is minor.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema carries no enums or descriptions, so the description's enumeration of valid category and status values is essential and adds real meaning beyond the schema. The limit parameter is left completely unexplained, which prevents a 5.

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+resource ('List catalog entries') so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not however name or contrast itself with the sibling search_catalog, leaving the listing-vs-searching distinction to inference.

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?

Gives strong contextual guidance: 'most useful with a filter' and explicitly 'filter by category or status', plus the rationale that an unfiltered listing is noise. No alternatives (e.g. search_catalog) or when-not-to-use cases are named, so it stops short of the top band.

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