describe_endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine behavioral value: it discloses that the response includes agent_hints (duration_class, max_concurrency, bulk billing) and that POST endpoints carry request_body_schema, which instructs the agent how to construct the body argument. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 tightly structured: purpose first, then valuable behavioral hints, then workflow guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool's title.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a rich output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: what it does, what the response contains, how to obtain operation_id, and where it fits in the workflow. The output schema covers return-value details, so nothing important 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter operation_id, and the schema already explains its provenance and error behavior. The description does not add much new parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning that exact parameter names come from this tool, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Describe one Sugra API endpoint by operation_id.' It is clearly differentiated from siblings by placing it in a workflow between search_endpoints and call_endpoint, so an agent can tell it apart from search, call, and data-fetch tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Call this after search_endpoints and before call_endpoint when you need the exact parameter names and examples.' This provides both temporal sequencing and a decision condition, making the usage context unambiguous.

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