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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: target secrets are redacted, and a targets array sent back through update_endpoint must carry each target's secret again. It also states error conditions for missing arguments or nonexistent lines/endpoints. This is valuable, non-obvious context that annotations alone would not provide.

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 focused and front-loaded: core purpose in the first sentence, a crucial redaction warning in the second, and error behavior in the third. The field list is long but necessary since there is no output schema; no words are wasted.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and explicitly noting redaction behavior. It also covers error cases. It does not describe the full JSON nesting or provide examples, but for a simple getter with two well-documented parameters, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for lineKey and endpointId, including an example and type. The description repeats the parameter names but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond the overall document scope; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get one endpoint's full document by `lineKey` and `endpointId`.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list tools by emphasizing a single endpoint, and it enumerates the exact returned fields, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 implies usage through required arguments and singular scope: use this when you need one endpoint's full document. It also mentions the round-trip caveat with update_endpointunci. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_endpoints or other sibling tools, nor does it give explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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