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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the output type (URL, optionally with inline content) but does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the API has no OpenAPI reference. This is a minimal disclosure, leaving the agent to guess about edge cases and requirements.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and free of fluff, though it sacrifices some detail for brevity. The key directive about 'include' is placed early.

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?

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally acceptable. It conveys the primary output (URL, optionally with content) and hints at the main parameter. However, it omits details like return format specifics, error handling, and the meaning of 'aid,' which would be needed for a robust call. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is low (33%), so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'include' parameter by explaining it inlines the spec body. However, it does not explain the required 'aid' parameter (presumably API identifier) or add semantics for 'context' beyond the schema's own description. The coverage is partial.

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 identifies the specific resource (an API's primary OpenAPI reference URL) and implies the action of retrieving it. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from search tools like find_openapis by indicating it is the 'top agent intent.' However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'fetches,' making it slightly less explicit.

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 gives only a parameter usage hint ('set include=[content]') and a vague priority statement ('top agent intent'). It does not clearly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_api, get_api_artifacts, or find_openapis, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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