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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so by specifying the output content (path, method, summary) and the optional tag filter. Although it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or grouping details, the verb 'Lists' implies a non-mutating operation and the schema supplements grouping info.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, and the second sentence gives a practical use case. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains what is returned and when to use it. It doesn't elaborate on grouping when no tag is provided, but that detail is present in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, and the parameter 'tag' has a detailed description already. The tool description only mentions 'optionally filtered by tag', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 lists all steamwebapi.com endpoints with their path, method, and summary, optionally filtered by tag. This distinctly differentiates it from siblings like get_endpoint (single endpoint) and search_endpoints (search) by emphasizing broad enumeration.

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 'Useful for quickly enumerating what is available' provides clear context for when to use the tool. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, the purpose is well understood relative to sibling tools.

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