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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the version-resolution rule ('published if any, else latest') and what the payload contains. It stays silent on auth requirements or error behavior when neither identifier is supplied.

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 the primary capability and followed by a single disambiguation pointer. Nothing is padded or repeated from the annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be spelled out, yet the description still signals the useful payload contents. For a trivial two-param read tool this is nearly complete; only the neither-identifier-supplied case is left unstated.

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 both parameters are already documented as alternatives ('provide this or endpoint_id'). The description restates the slug-or-id choice but adds no format examples or precedence rule for when both are passed, so baseline 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get a single dynamic endpoint by slug or id') and enumerates what comes back: the public URL and the definition body of the current version. It also distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling get_dynamic_endpoint_version, so an agent can choose without opening both schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_dynamic_endpoint_version 'to read a specific older version', which is the main ambiguity for this tool. It does not mention other adjacent siblings like get_dynamic_endpoint_definition_schema or list_dynamic_endpoints, so it is clear context but not exhaustive when/when-not guidance.

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