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 behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the tool returns a document, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the document is dynamically generated. For a simple getter, this is minimally sufficient but leaves some ambiguity.

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 fully states the tool's purpose without any filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent exactly what is returned and for what purpose. It could add a note about the response format (JSON vs YAML) but that is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters and is covered 100% by the schema (which is empty). Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it adds no param-related information 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?

The description clearly specifies the action ('Return') and the resource ('the OpenAPI 3.1 document'), with an additional qualifier ('for direct HTTP API usage') that sharpens the scope. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_agent_contract or get_config, all of which return different types of documents.

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 phrase 'for direct HTTP API usage' provides clear context that this tool is the entry point for obtaining the API specification when one intends to interact with the HTTP API directly. It does not explicitly name alternatives or add exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can confidently choose it when needing the OpenAPI document.

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