api_describe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the output includes safety notes, which is a hint about content, but it never states that the call is read-only, side-effect free, or whether the referenced tool must exist/is validated, leaving key behavioral traits unstated.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a result of under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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 one-parameter meta tool with no annotations or output schema, the description does convey what is returned (input schema plus security notes), which partially compensates for the absent output schema. However, it omits usage context and any behavioral guarantees an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented in the schema, including the cross-reference to api_search. The description adds nothing beyond 'the specified tool', so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific purpose: returning the full input schema and security notes for a named tool, which is a clear verb+resource for an introspection tool. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling api_search (which finds tools) by focusing on schema retrieval, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus api_search or api_status, nor any stated prerequisites or sequencing (e.g., 'call after api_search to inspect a tool'). The intended workflow is only weakly implied by the schema's note that the tool name is 'as in api_search'.

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