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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the breadth of the returned contract and its multi-mode lookup, but says nothing about behavior on non-matches or ambiguous lookups, which matters for a lookup with three overlapping selectors.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before moving to lookup modes. Dense but every clause carries information; only minor cost is the slightly run-on enumeration of contract contents.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given the tool's simplicity (read-only lookup with complete schema coverage), the description is complete enough; only error/ambiguity handling is unaddressed.

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 coverage is already 100%, but the description still adds meaning: it clarifies that id is the docs page slug with an example ('item-restore'), that path accepts both templated and concrete forms with an example, and that query is a free-text description. This is genuine value beyond the schema.

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 (the full contract of one REST API endpoint), and enumerates exactly what the contract contains: parameters, headers, body, responses, examples, and SDK method. This distinguishes it from list_api_endpoints by making clear it returns one full endpoint rather than a list, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 three ways to locate an endpoint (by id, method+path, or description), which implies usage but never states when to choose this tool over list_api_endpoints or get_sdk_method, nor any when-not condition. Guidance is present but inferential rather than explicit.

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