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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond retrieving schema, but nothing more is needed given the strong annotation coverage and presence of an output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the action, the resource, and the source of the required parameter.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup tool with a complete input schema, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It also ties the parameter to its producer tool, making invocation straightforward.

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 100%, and the schema already documents endpoint_id as 'Endpoint id returned by search_endpoints.' The description essentially repeats this relationship without adding new parameter meaning, 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource: the full schema and parameter contract for an endpoint_id. It also references the sibling tool search_endpoints as the source of the endpoint_id, distinguishing this lookup operation from call_endpoint and other siblings.

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 makes it clear the endpoint_id must come from search_endpoints, which implies the correct sequencing. It doesn't explicitly mention not to use call_endpoint for this purpose, but the context plus the tool name make the intended use unambiguous.

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