get_endpoint_details

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. 'Selective data retrieval for token optimization' hints that the include* flags trim the payload, but it never says what the returned detail contains, how large it is, or what the defaults imply.

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 filler. It is tight, though the phrase 'with selective data retrieval for token optimization' is somewhat opaque about which parameters control that selection.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it does not explain what the include* toggles return, does not mention session prerequisites, and leaves the relationship to list_endpoints unstated.

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 all ten parameters, including the include* toggles and responseStatusCodes filter, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond the vague 'selective data retrieval' framing, so the 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 ('Get detailed information about a specific endpoint') and contrasts with the sibling list_endpoints by implying single-endpoint detail. It stops short of naming the sibling or scoping the difference 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a sessionId from initialize_session is required), and no direction on choosing this over list_endpoints or generate_documentation. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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