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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds the notion of 'resolved headers' and 'cascade' but does not describe side effects or additional behavioral detail beyond the annotation, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 a single, compact sentence with no redundant words. It immediately communicates the action, object, and a key detail (cascade order).

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 is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly, including the key cascade detail and the project context requirement. It does not explicitly differentiate from structurally similar tools, but that is a minor gap given the runtime context and sibling list.

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?

Both parameters have standard descriptions in the schema ('Public ID (GUID) of the API specification' and 'Public ID (GUID) of the endpoint'). The tool description adds no further meaning, so it stays at the baseline for adequate schema 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resolved headers for an endpoint'), and clarifies the scope with 'full cascade of header policies'. This is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

Only mentions 'Requires project context' as a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to prefer this over closely related siblings like get_resolved_headers or get_header_policy. No explicit alternative selection criteria or situational cues.

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