describe_endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (dictionary of name, path, method, parameters, response, auth, plans) and implies a read-only lookup, but does not explicitly state it is non-mutating, nor cover error conditions or rate limits. It adds useful context beyond the schema but leaves some aspects implicit.

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 well-structured with a summary line, Args, and Returns sections. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary, but the api_version guidance is valuable and earns its place. No redundancy with the schema.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return values. However, it lacks any mention of when to prefer this tool over search_endpoints or get_info, and it does not address potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., auth). These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does exceptionally well: endpoint_name is illustrated with V2/V1 examples (eq-master, daily_quotes), and api_version comes with decision rules based on conversation context and endpoint naming patterns. This goes far beyond the bare schema.

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 retrieves detailed information for a specified endpoint ('指定されたエンドポイントの詳細情報を取得する'), with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_endpoints or get_info, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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?

There is implied usage (need details for a known endpoint) and practical guidance for choosing api_version based on V1/V2 context ('V1のエンドポイントパス...が含まれる場合は'v1'を指定'). However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., search_endpoints) or exclusions, so it only reaches the 'implied usage' level.

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