OpenAPI vs Postman vs docs drift check

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses substantial behavior: which drift checks are performed and that live=true expands behavior to 404 and anchor verification. It does not mention auth needs, network cost, or report shape, but as a read-only check tool these omissions are minor.

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?

One dense, front-loaded list sentence covers the tool's purpose, followed by a useful release-process framing sentence. No filler, though the comma-separated list is long enough that it requires a second read to parse all cases.

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 drift-check tool with only optional parameters and no output schema, the description lists the checks and the schema defines options/defaults. Missing details like exact report structure are secondary; enough context is present to select and invoke it 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 covers live and include_llms_full with descriptions; format is only an enum. The description adds context to live by tying it to externalDocs 404/anchor checks and to include_llms_full by mentioning endpoints absent from llms-full.txt. It adds no separate semantics for format, but the enum itself provides usable choices.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource scope: 'Cross-checks the official OpenAPI spec against the official Postman collection and plaid.com/docs'. It then enumerates distinct drift categories (missing endpoints, deprecated/unknown endpoints, externalDocs links, llms-full.txt coverage), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like plaid_api_search and plaid_docs_fetch.

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 establishes a clear usage context: 'the maintenance checklist a DevRel engineer would run before each release'. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the role and timing are explicit enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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