describe_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. While it accurately describes the tool's behavior (retrieving endpoint specs, not executing them), it doesn't disclose what happens on invalid operation_id, whether the full response fields might be extensive, or potential size/rate implications. However, since this is a fundamentally read-only, low-risk metadata tool, the description is adequate but could note error behavior for invalid operationIds.

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 dense sentence plus one directive sentence. It front-loads the purpose and packs a substantial amount of concrete detail (method, path, params, filters, request body, response fields, sample). The only minor inefficiency is the length of the enumeration, but every element is informative. No wasted words.

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 metadata/read tool with just one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (full spec contents), when to use it (before call_endpoint), and how to identify the target (operation_id examples). It could improve by noting the handle for invalid/unknown operation_ids, but overall it's quite complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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%, meaning the schema provides no description for the operation_id parameter. However, the description compensates by explaining operation_id is an 'endpoint operationId' with examples ('get_tenants', 'post_bills') and references list_endpoints as the source. While it doesn't fully explain what an operationId is or its format constraints, the examples plus context are reasonable. The 0% coverage means the description must compensate, and it does partially.

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 'Get' with a clear resource: 'the full specification for a single AppFolio Database API endpoint'. It enumerates exactly what the specification contains (method, path, query filters, request body, response fields, request sample). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_endpoints (which lists endpoints) and call_endpoint (which executes them).

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Call this before call_endpoint to know exactly which parameters to pass.' This gives a clear when-to-use directive and names the specific alternative it pairs with, establishing a workflow. The contrast with call_endpoint makes the usage context unambiguous.

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