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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior such as read-only safety, auth requirements, or missing-endpoint responses. It only says 'Status of one endpoint' and does not address these aspects, leaving the agent without enough behavioral 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical token guidance earns its place by giving actionable parameter advice.

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 three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several sibling tools, this description is too thin. An agent still cannot determine which identifier to pass in which scenario, what the status response contains, or when to prefer list_endpoints.

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 only 33%, and the description adds a useful hint to use the endpoint token if available. However, it does not explain the required id parameter, the role of guest_token, or how these identifiers relate, so it does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 that the tool reports the status of a single endpoint, which distinguishes it from list_endpoints and create/delete_endpoint. It uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the intent is unambiguous and resource-specific.

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 singular 'one endpoint' implies this is for individual status lookups, and the token hint provides an identifier preference. However, it never explicitly names list_endpoints as the alternative for multiple endpoints or states when this tool should not be used.

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