list_api_endpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses the return format ('Returns: ...'), including handling of empty keyword (extra 'error' key). It describes search behavior (case-insensitive substring match). No side effects are mentioned, but it's a read operation. The description is transparent about what the tool does and returns.

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 well-structured with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet thorough.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return format comprehensively. It lacks mention of authentication requirements or potential errors (beyond empty keyword), but given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, it is mostly complete.

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?

The description fully explains each parameter beyond the schema: keyword (substring match, case-insensitive), methods (optional, valid HTTP methods), limit (max results, default 25). Schema has 0% coverage, so the description compensates completely.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Cin7 Core's REST endpoints by keyword.' It specifies the action (search), the resource (endpoints), and distinguishes from siblings like get_api_endpoint_schema (get schema) and invoke_api_endpoint (invoke).

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 description implies usage (search endpoints) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_api_endpoint_schema for details on a specific endpoint). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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