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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the returned schema covers both request AND response, which is useful beyond the annotations and beyond the short output schema summary. It says nothing about lookup failure behavior or that the 'method' parameter affects which schema is returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the payoff ('full request and response schema'). No filler and no redundancy with the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile; a single sentence is close to sufficient for a simple two-parameter read. The only missing piece is any hint about the expected workflow with api_request or how an invalid path is surfaced.

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%: the path format example '/v1/tiktok/profile' and the GET/POST enum-free method constraint are documented inline. The description contributes nothing additional about parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the full request and response schema for one AM-CORE endpoint'), which is precise enough to tell apart from list_endpoints (enumerates endpoints) and api_request (executes calls). It is clear what the tool produces, though the 'AM-CORE' naming is only meaningful if the agent already knows the product.

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?

Usage is only implied: you fetch a schema, presumably before calling api_request. Neither sibling is named, and there is no statement of when to prefer list_endpoints to discover a path first, nor what happens for an unknown path. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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