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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope of what is retrieved (full endpoint details) but does not disclose additional behavioral aspects such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—some value added but not rich context.

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, tightly packed sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get one endpoint in full') and immediately enumerates the return contents. There is zero fluff, and every clause adds value. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 read-only getter with 4 params (1 required) and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it explains what is returned and how to identify the endpoint. The schema covers parameter details. It does not mention potential error conditions or prerequisites, but given the annotations and schema, these are not critical. It could be slightly more complete by noting that collection_id is required, but that is already in the schema.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so all parameters are documented. The description adds the crucial semantic that endpoint_id and method+path are alternative identification methods, clarifying their mutual exclusivity and the expected usage pattern. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, which don't mention the relationship between them.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one endpoint'), and specifies exactly what is returned (description, parameters, headers, request body, saved response examples, version). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_api_collection (which gets a collection) and list_api_collections (which lists) by focusing on a single endpoint. The identification methods are clearly outlined, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explains how to identify the endpoint (by endpoint_id or by method + path) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_api_collection or list_api_collections. The context is clear: use this when you need full details of a single endpoint. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, so it's not a perfect 5.

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