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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the return includes complete schema, request/response details, and examples. This adequately communicates the read-only nature and behavior, though it omits mention of error handling or invalid inputs.

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 extremely concise with only four sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the purpose, gives usage advice, and then lists args and returns in a clear, structured manner.

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 tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and returns. It lists key return components (request body, response schema, example). Minor omission: no mention of errors or state effects, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, so the description compensates by providing an example ('syncContactEnrichment') and explaining the parameter as 'The operation ID'. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool gets the 'COMPLETE schema and details for a specific API operation'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and distinguishes well from siblings like list_all_endpoints (lists all) and call_operation (executes).

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 says 'Use this BEFORE calling an API to understand exactly what parameters are needed,' which provides clear context and contrasts with call_operation. However, it does not mention when not to use it or exclude other sibling tools.

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