asc_describe_endpoint

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already known, but the description adds value by disclosing the output content (parameters, request body schema, risk tier). This is especially useful because there is no output schema.

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 compact, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. The core value is stated first, followed by a clear usage directive.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and when to call it. Minor omissions are the source of operationId and a definition of the risk tier, but these are not critical.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter semantics. It implies operationId selects the operation, but it does not explain where to get an operationId or what format it takes. The parameter is simple and self-describing, but the gap prevents a higher 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 returns full detail for one operation: every parameter, request body schema, and risk tier. This is specific and distinguishable from siblings like asc_search_endpoints (search/discovery) and asc_write/asc_call (execution).

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 instruction 'Call this before any write' explicitly states when the tool should be used. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the reference to write operations effectively excludes the sibling write tools and provides a clear usage context.

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