Describe API endpoint

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the remaining value is provenance, and the description supplies it by naming the official OpenAPI spec as the source, which tells the agent the answer is authoritative rather than inferred. It does not say what happens when a path is not found in the spec.

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, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the path-format caveat second. The inline examples do real work rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated; the description still names the three things returned (parameters, request body, response fields), which is enough for an agent to decide to call it. It could be slightly stronger by relating itself explicitly to the sibling tools.

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 only 50% and the undocumented parameter is `path`; the description compensates by explaining that it accepts either a template ('/vserver/{service_name}/crontab') or a concrete path, with examples. `method` is already documented in the schema, so no further detail is needed there.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: it shows parameters, request-body fields and response fields for an endpoint, sourced from the official OpenAPI spec. That distinguishes it from siblings like find_endpoints (discovery) and zone_api_request (execution), since this one is pure spec introspection.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer you call this before zone_api_request to learn an endpoint's shape, but the description never says when to use it instead of find_endpoints or zone_api_request. No preconditions or failure cases (e.g. unknown path) are given.

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