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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it. It is a blind passthrough: nothing is said about whether target endpoints are read or write operations, auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what a failure looks like.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite discovery step follows immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values needn't be explained, but as a generic dispatcher with no annotations and no behavioral disclosure, the description leaves the agent without needed context on mutability, auth, or failure modes. It is minimally adequate.

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 the schema already documents both 'params' (a JSON object string with example) and 'endpoint' (a name from search-endpoints results). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Call a Scrappa API endpoint by name'), which is clear and actionable, and it names the sibling 'search-endpoints' as the prerequisite for discovery. It is a clear purpose, though 'call an endpoint' is a generic dispatcher framing that doesn't hint at what kinds of endpoints exist or what the call yields.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use search-endpoints first to discover endpoints and their parameters. This establishes the workflow relative to the sibling. However, it offers no when-not conditions and frames search-endpoints only as a prerequisite, not as a true alternative-selection rule.

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