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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing the returned agent_hints (duration_class, max_concurrency, bulk billing) and request_body_schema, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences: first states the core purpose, second adds agent_hints usage, third explains POST body schema. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simple interface (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the purpose, key output contents, and usage guidance. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool. Minor gaps like error conditions or explicit mention of output schema are mitigated by the existing output schema.

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 single parameter operation_id is not explicitly described in the description, relying on the tool name and purpose for context. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden. But the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer operation_id is the endpoint identifier. A brief explanation would raise the score.

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 explicitly states 'Describe one Sugra API endpoint by operation_id', with a specific verb and resource. The contrast with sibling tool call_endpoint is clear from context, as describe_endpoint is for metadata retrieval, not execution.

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 provides clear usage guidance: use this tool to obtain agent_hints for budgeting timeouts/parallelism and to get request_body_schema for POST endpoints. It implicitly tells the agent to use this before calling endpoints. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search_endpoints, the context is sufficient.

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