APIFold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what is retrieved (SSE endpoint URL) but omits error handling (e.g., invalid slug), side effects, caching behavior, or whether this operation incurs costs or rate limits.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action verb. There is no redundant or wasted text; every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

While adequate for a simple two-parameter lookup tool, the description lacks information about the return value format (critical given no output schema exists) and error conditions. It meets minimum viability but leaves operational gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already comprehensively documents both parameters (including examples for 'slug'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'slug' parameter via 'by slug', so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 resource ('SSE endpoint URL') and clearly scopes the operation to a specific server identified 'by slug'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tool 'list_servers' (which presumably enumerates servers rather than retrieving a specific endpoint).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention that 'list_servers' should likely be used first to discover valid slugs, or under what circumstances an agent should call this endpoint.

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