describe_endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the tool is offline and makes no upstream request, which is a critical behavioral guarantee. It also describes the output categories, helping an agent understand what to expect. It stops short of explicitly declaring 'read-only' or discussing side effects, but the wording strongly implies a safe, non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output specifics, and the second adds the key offline/no-upstream behavior. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output content, and offline behavior. It would be slightly more complete if it pointed to list_endpoints as the source for entryId, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can still use it correctly based on this description.

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 implies entryId identifies which catalogued endpoint to describe, but it does not explicitly state that entryId is the endpoint's catalogue identifier or explain how an agent should discover it (e.g., via list_endpoints). This is minimal compensation; the meaning of the parameter is only indirectly inferred.

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 and resource: 'Describe one catalogued endpoint' and enumerates exactly what it returns (parameters, result contract, evidence dimensions, provenance). This clearly separates it from list_endpoints (which lists endpoints) and from data-fetching tools like transaction_inspect. The offline statement further distinguishes it from live-query siblings.

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 description implies usage for retrieving metadata about a single endpoint rather than live data, and the offline note suggests it is safe to call without network effects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_endpoints or other data-fetching siblings, nor does it mention that entryId likely comes from list_endpoints. There are no explicit exclusions.

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