Get SwOS Endpoint

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: unknown keys are preserved under '_raw', which tells the agent how to handle unexpected fields. It does not mention authentication or error behavior, but given the annotation coverage this is a solid addition.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the purpose with examples, the second adds a key behavioral note. No filler or redundancy, every clause earns its place.

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 simple read tool with 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and a key behavior (_raw). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description lists many endpoint examples, but this largely duplicates the enum and adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch and decode') and resource ('a single SwOS '.b' endpoint') with examples, and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from list_swos_endpoints. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast it with get_swos_config or other SwOS tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 (fetch one endpoint's structured data) but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. An agent must infer that list_swos_endpoints is for listing and this is for retrieving a specific endpoint.

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