get_api_reference

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the return shape (endpoint index plus a `connector` object with version and tool names) and the critical interpretation rule about stale tool lists vs. unbuilt features. It omits any auth or rate-limit notes, keeping it at 4.

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?

Purpose and the api_request handoff are front-loaded, which is correct. The second paragraph is somewhat repetitive (stale list / reconnect / don't report missing are restated), and the trailing '[#5dc40c]' token is unexplained noise that dilutes an otherwise tight definition.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explaining both return components (endpoint index and connector block). For a discovery tool with one optional param and read-only annotations, everything an agent needs to call and interpret it is present.

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% and the single `filter` param is fully documented in the schema (substring match with examples). The description adds no extra syntax or semantics for it, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Discover the full ApparelHub agent API') and precisely describes the payload: 'a compact index of every endpoint (path, methods, summary) from the live OpenAPI spec.' It is clearly distinguishable from its sibling api_request, which it explicitly feeds.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger — 'Use this when no dedicated tool covers what you need' — and names the follow-up tool ('then call it with api_request'). It also states what to do if a capability is missing, which is real routing guidance.

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