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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Free' is useful behavioral context, and 'Show the full call signature' suggests a read-only introspection operation rather than an actual endpoint call. Still, it does not explicitly state that no endpoint is executed, no credits are consumed, or that this is purely a documentation/metadata lookup.

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?

One tight sentence front-loads the most important fact ('Free') and then enumerates the return contents with no wasted words. Every phrase earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's value immediately obvious.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states cost, input is implied by the path, and it names all output categories. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly connecting to search_endpoints as the way to discover paths, but that gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the schema already documents 'path' with an example. The tool description adds context about what the returned signature contains, but it does not add any new meaning to the path parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a clear resource ('the full call signature for one endpoint') and enumerates exactly what is included: required and optional parameters, allowed values, price, and response shape. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like search_endpoints, which searches rather than describes a single endpoint.

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 clearly implies this tool is for inspecting a specific endpoint once its path is known, and 'Free' signals it is safe for discovery. However, it never explicitly says 'if you don't know the path, use search_endpoints first' or mentions when not to use it, so the routing guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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