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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial non-obvious details: large response bodies are truncated, leading '/api' or '/v1' prefixes are ignored, path parameter spellings are flexible, and query strings select among duplicate recordings with an `{ ambiguous: true, candidates: [...] }` fallback. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core purpose and accepted input form are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence covers a necessary edge case: path flexibility, prefix stripping, duplicate recordings, ambiguity handling, and no-match behavior. The description is dense but every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description still specifies what the response contains, mentions truncation and where full text lives, gives the exact ambiguity payload shape, and describes the no-match error behavior. The agent has enough information to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 schema documents the single `endpoint` parameter with examples, but the description adds decisive parsing semantics: it accepts either an id or 'METHOD /path', tolerates any path-parameter spelling, ignores leading API prefixes, and explains how a query string disambiguates duplicate recordings. This is far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 opens with 'Full contract of one endpoint' and enumerates the exact contents (method, URL, auth, query/header params, request body example, example responses), so the agent knows precisely what operation is performed. It is clearly distinct from search/list tools: it takes an endpoint id or 'METHOD /path' and returns the detailed contract.

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 tells the agent where the input comes from ('endpoint id from search/list'), how to resolve duplicate recordings, and what to do on ambiguity ('call again with one of the candidate ids'). It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of fully explicit alternative guidance.

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