get_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered and the description is free to spend its words on content coverage and sequencing relative to invoke_api. It adds real context — what the agent will find in the returned docs and why to fetch them first — without describing freshness or caching, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first enumerates the payload, the second gives the actionable instruction. Content is front-loaded and the ordering advice lands last where it is easiest to act on.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description compensates by listing exactly what the response contains (schemas, response fields, error codes, rate limits, examples). Combined with the invocation hint, an agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the single 'name' parameter with a concrete example alias, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond 'one API'. Baseline 3 is the correct ceiling here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the full documentation for one API') and immediately enumerates what that documentation contains (path/query/body schemas, response fields, error codes, rate limits, examples). This reads clearly as a single-resource doc fetch, distinct from discovery siblings like list_apis and search_apis.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow trigger: 'Call this before invoke_api for non-trivial bodies,' which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It does not spell out the inverse case (skipping it for trivial calls is only implied by 'non-trivial'), so the exclusion is inferred rather than stated.

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