Describe one endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It states what the tool returns (request fields, response example, deprecation status, docs link), which is transparent about its output. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that it has no side effects. While 'describe' strongly implies a read operation, the absence of an explicit statement is a minor gap, though not contradictory.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists the key outputs (request fields, response example, deprecation status, docs link) and includes a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. Slightly dense but well-structured; loses a point for cramming multiple items into one sentence without visual separation.

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-only tool with only two parameters, both fully documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what details are returned and an example. It doesn't describe the exact response format, but since it says 'a 200 response example from the spec', that is clear enough. Minor omission: no mention of error cases or pagination, but these are unlikely for a describe tool. Overall, adequately complete.

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%, so both parameters (path, include_response_fields) are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it merely reiterates the concept of a path with an example. Since the schema handles parameter semantics completely, a 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 clearly states the tool's action ('describe') and resource ('one endpoint'), and enumerates the specific details it returns (request fields, 200 response example, deprecation status, docs link). It is unambiguous and gives a concrete example path. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like plaid_api_request_example or plaid_api_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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: if you need structured endpoint details (fields, response example, deprecation), use this tool. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like plaid_api_search or plaid_api_request_example, and offers no exclusions or alternative routing. It is not misleading, but the context is only implied.

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