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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: endpointIds fetches up to 25 endpoints with the same detail per endpoint in one call, and project context is required. This goes beyond what the annotations alone 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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: the first states the core purpose, the second covers the batch mode, and the third gives routing guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 readOnlyHint annotation, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content, the batch limit, the required context, and the alternative tool. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the relationship that endpointIds can be passed instead of endpointId and returns the same detail per endpoint, which is helpful but does not add substantial syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Get') with a clear resource ('endpoint') and enumerates the returned content: parameters, request body, responses, and security schemes. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_endpoints by noting this is for when the endpoint id is already known.

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 the tool: when you already have the endpoint id. It names list_endpoints as the alternative for browsing a spec's endpoints or finding an id, and it adds the project context requirement, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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