Detalle de un endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned object includes idempotency, credit cost, error codes, and documentation prose, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not describe pagination or data freshness.

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?

It is two sentences, front-loaded with the returned payload and followed by the identification instructions. The field enumeration is slightly dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what to expect in the response.

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 read-only introspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and how to address the resource. It could note what happens if the endpoint is not found or when v1 is not available, but otherwise it is complete enough to invoke 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 coverage is 100% and all four parameters are documented in the schema with examples and enums. The description reinforces the identification patterns but adds no syntax 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Devuelve el detalle completo de un endpoint') and enumerates the exact payload fields (parámetros, request body, respuestas, scope, costo, idempotencia, errores, prosa). It is unmistakably distinct from sibling list_endpoints, which it references.

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?

It states when to use this tool by giving the two identification modes (operationId, or method+path) and points to list_endpoints for discovery. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance (e.g. for flows or errors, see describe_flow/explain_error), which other siblings cover.

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