get_endpoint_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns request body schema, path/query params, example response, OAuth scope, and usage notes. It does not mention side effects or auth requirements beyond scope, but for a read-only documentation lookup this is sufficient.

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?

Single sentence packs maximum value with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists deliverables concisely.

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 lack of output schema and many sibling tools, the description sufficiently captures what the tool returns. It could mention whether matches are exact or partial, and if authentication is needed, but overall it is complete for a documentation tool.

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 100% (all 3 parameters described). The description adds context that parameters relate to endpoint detail retrieval but does not exceed schema descriptions. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive detail for a specific BigCommerce API endpoint'. It enumerates included elements (schema, params, example, OAuth scope, usage notes), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_live_doc or get_api_endpoints.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies the tool is for retrieving detailed endpoint info but does not differentiate from 12 sibling tools or advise on alternatives.

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