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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that references are expanded and that it returns a single schema, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is safe (read-only). For a simple get operation, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose and usage are front-loaded, and the examples are integrated naturally. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description is complete. It explains what it returns (a schema with references expanded), when to use it, and how to specify the name. No additional information is needed for an agent to call it 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 description already covers the parameter (name) at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds concrete example schema names ('SubmitIntentParams' or 'OrdersResponse') and specifies that the name should match how it appears in endpoint descriptions, going beyond the schema to clarify valid values.

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 it returns a named schema from the API reference, with a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'named schema'. It distinguishes from siblings like describe_anthid_endpoint (endpoints) and list_anthid_endpoints (lists) by focusing on schema retrieval, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use this when an endpoint description names a schema you need in full.' This gives a clear condition for use, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools. The condition is specific enough to guide selection.

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