get_api_endpoint_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Retrieve' implies read-only, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, error handling, pagination, or other behavioral traits. The output schema covers return format, but other aspects are absent.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and no fluff. The example list is directly useful and efficient.

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?

The output schema handles return values, but the description lacks usage context, exclusions, and related tool guidance. For a simple single-parameter lookup, this is minimally sufficient but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides example API names ('customer-onboarding', 'product-catalog') which add format context, but does not fully define the parameter's meaning beyond those examples.

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 action ('Retrieve') and resource ('API catalog information for an internal API'), with example API names to clarify scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting API catalog info rather than customer or product data.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The examples imply what api_name should be, but there is no stated context or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling names.

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