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

The annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds behavioral details such as the batch limit ('up to 25') and the requirement for project context. No side effects or destructive actions are implied or performed, so transparency is strong.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It packs in the key details (what is returned, batch option, limit, context requirement) without any redundant wording or unnecessary structure.

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?

The description gives enough information to call the tool correctly: it specifies the required specId, explains the optional endpointId vs endpointIds choice, and mentions the prerequisite of project context. It lacks explicit response format details, but since no output schema is provided and the description lists the contained data categories, it remains sufficiently complete for a fetch operation.

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 describes all parameters with clear definitions (specId, endpointId, endpointIds) and includes usage hints like 'omit when using endpointIds' and 'comma-separated, at most 25.' The description reinforces these semantics by explaining the relationship between endpointId and endpointIds, achieving 100% coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about an endpoint including parameters, request body, responses, and security schemes.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('endpoint'), and adds the batch capability via endpointIds, distinguishing it from list endpoints.

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 provides explicit usage guidance for selecting between endpointId and endpointIds ('Pass endpointIds instead of endpointId to fetch several at once'), and notes the prerequisite 'Requires project context.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with list_endpoints or other get_* alternatives, so guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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