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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses what the tool returns and the three accepted input formats, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or how it behaves for unknown endpoints. The 'Return' wording implies a safe lookup but stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core output and purpose, then give usage context, then enumerate accepted input forms. Every sentence carries information, and there is no redundancy with the title or schema.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by detailing exactly what the reference will contain: authentication, parameters with examples, request body schema and examples, and response examples. It also clarifies the optional method parameter's role and gives accessible input examples, making the tool fully callable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples ('/v1/orders', 'POST /v1/intents', 'submitIntent') add practical format clarity beyond the schema, but they do not meaningfully expand on the endpoint and method semantics already described in the input schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('the full reference for one endpoint') and enumerates the exact contents, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list endpoints or search the API. The title and description align without tautology.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Read this before writing a request rather than inferring the shape.' However, it does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it versus siblings like get_anthid_api_schema or search_anthid_api, so some exclusion guidance is missing.

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