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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds the specific content (the OpenAPI 3.1 spec). It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response size, auth requirements, or rate limits, but with a simple read-only tool and no parameters, the bar is lower. The description adds minimal context beyond the annotation.

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, direct sentence that conveys the essential information. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 tool with no parameters, a readOnly annotation, and a simple output (the OpenAPI spec), the description is complete. It specifies exactly what is returned and does not require additional explanation.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The schema coverage is 100% (vacuously).

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 the tool's action ('Return') and its resource (the Quiz.Video OpenAPI 3.1 specification). It is specific about the format and version, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_api_catalog and get_llms_txt.

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 implies usage: when you need the OpenAPI specification, call this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools suggests other documentation endpoints, but no guidance is given.

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