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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by declaring no side effects and outlining the structured return content (method, path, request/response schema, known consumers/features), which is not fully available from any output schema.

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 three well-structured sentences: purpose, side-effect declaration, and usage timing. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or redundant restating.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return payload, read-only nature, and when to invoke it. It could be slightly stronger by explaining fallback behavior when repository is omitted, but the schema already covers that, so the overall context is 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains paths and repository semantics thoroughly, including multi-repo behavior. The description adds little beyond framing paths as files 'an agent is about to touch,' so no extra score is warranted.

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 structured context') tied to a clear resource ('API endpoints') derived from file paths. It enumerates the returned fields (method, path, request/response schema, consumers/features) and distinguishes this from sibling tools by pairing it with get_doc_impact.

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 to call this tool before editing API route or schema code, and names get_doc_impact as a complementary tool. It does not provide a formal when-not-to-use exclusion, but the use case is clearly scoped to pre-edit API impact assessment.

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