Inspect an ESI operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what metadata will be returned and confirms the read-only nature. It does not cover error behavior for unknown operationIds, but this is not a major gap given the annotations and scope.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main action and enumerates the return contents without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple interface.

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 one-parameter introspection tool, the description fully covers what the tool returns and when to use it. There is no output schema, so the explicit enumeration of returned metadata is sufficient. Sibling tool names provide the surrounding workflow context.

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 schema provides no description for operationId and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys the general purpose but does not explicitly explain that operationId should be a valid ESI operation identifier returned by search_esi_operations. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, which raises it from 2, but the description could have stated this relationship more directly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource ('one read-only ESI operation') and the specific metadata delivered (path/query/header parameters, OAuth scopes, cache hints, rate-limit metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_esi_operations and call_esi tools.

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 phrase 'before calling it' explicitly identifies this as a pre-call inspection tool, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name search_esi_operations as the alternative for discovering operations, but the sibling list and the tool's purpose imply this distinction.

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