describe_endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing safety. The description adds value by detailing that the output includes agent_hints and request_body_schema for POST endpoints, going beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 four sentences, with the first stating the purpose upfront. Subsequent sentences add necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it concise 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?

Given the simple input (one parameter), rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage guidance, and key return values (agent_hints, request_body_schema). It does not need to repeat output schema details, making it complete.

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?

There is only one parameter (operation_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'by operation_id' and refers to constructing the 'body' argument from the schema, but does not explain what operation_id represents or how to find it. It provides minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, hence a baseline score.

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 function: 'Describe one Sugra API endpoint by operation_id.' It uses a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('Sugra API endpoint'), and the input parameter is explicitly mentioned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'call_endpoint' (execution) and 'search_endpoints' (finding).

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 guidance: use this tool before calling an endpoint to get agent_hints (for timeouts/parallelism) and request_body_schema (for constructing POST bodies). It implies this is for inspection, not execution. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use statements, but the context is sufficient.

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