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 explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool is offline and makes no upstream request. This is a significant transparency point. It does not cover other behaviors (e.g., error handling, output format), but for a single-parameter description tool, this covers the main guarantee.

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 waste. The main action is front-loaded, and the offline note is placed second. Both sentences serve distinct purposes, making the description efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the tool's scope (one endpoint), the content of the result (parameters, result contract, evidence dimensions, provenance), and its operational characteristic (offline). Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 implies entryId refers to a catalogued endpoint but does not provide format, source, or validation details beyond the schema's minLength. The single parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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's purpose: to describe one catalogued endpoint, listing the exact aspects covered (parameters, result contract, evidence dimensions, provenance). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_endpoints and data-fetching tools by focusing on metadata rather than data retrieval.

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 provides clear context that the tool is offline and makes no upstream request, implying it's safe and fast. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like list_endpoints or when not to use it. The offline note is a helpful usage signal but lacks explicit direction.

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