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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about what kind of detail is returned (security schemes and servers), but it does not describe behaviors like error handling, not-found cases, or how much detail is included.

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?

A single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by relevant detail. There is no filler or repetition of the tool name or annotation content.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is mostly sufficient. It names key response aspects, though without an output schema it leaves 'detailed information' somewhat open-ended.

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 path and method are fully described in the input schema with examples, and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Gets') and resource ('detailed information about a specific API endpoint'), and even names representative contents (security schemes, servers). This distinguishes it from list-endpoints and search-endpoints, which are about discovery rather than targeted detail retrieval.

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 phrase 'specific API endpoint' implies this is for when the path and method are already known, but it does not explicitly contrast with list-endpoints/search-endpoints for discovery or execute-request for invocation. Usage context is present only by inference.

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