Spec overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the exact informational content delivered, which implies a safe, read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs, nor does it mention any access requirements or side effects beyond the output itself.

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 sentence conveys all the important output categories in a logical order, starting with the spec version and ending with the sandbox-only endpoint list. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple parameterless informational tool with no output schema. The description fully enumerates what the agent will receive (version, counts, sandbox-only list), so nothing necessary for invoking or interpreting the tool is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema fully covers the input side. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 what the tool reports: the OpenAPI spec version, endpoint counts across categories, and the list of sandbox-only endpoints. It is specific enough to distinguish this informational tool from siblings like plaid_api_search and plaid_api_describe, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets'.

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 explains what the tool provides but gives no guidance on when to use it versus the many sibling tools. There is no mention of intended context, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this stat-overview tool is appropriate.

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