Describe a ReAI API endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying output contents ('every parameter, the full request body with nested objects resolved, and response shapes'), which helps an agent understand what to expect when invoking the tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by practical usage guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of schema details or annotations.

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 tool is simple (3 parameters, no output schema), and the description is sufficient: it explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and why it matters. It also provides enough context to distinguish it from sibling tools without needing to enumerate alternatives.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters (method, path, depth) with clear explanations. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') and clearly identifies the resource ('complete schema for one ReAI endpoint'). It explicitly lists what the tool returns (every parameter, full request body with nested objects resolved, response shapes) and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like reai_search_endpoints.

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 states exactly when to use the tool: 'Use this before calling an unfamiliar endpoint with reai_request, especially for POST and PUT where required fields matter.' This names the companion tool (reai_request) and gives a concrete condition (unfamiliar endpoints, POST/PUT), providing clear guidance versus alternatives.

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