describe_adbutler_api

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

No annotations were provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what the tool returns (full schema with parameters, request body, response shape) and implies this is a non-mutating metadata operation. While it doesn't explicitly state 'read-only' or 'does not invoke the endpoint,' the wording and purpose make this clear enough for a schema retrieval tool.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides workflow context. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description fully covers its purpose, output, and usage in context with sibling tools. It also explains what the expected output looks like (full schema), which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents method and path with clear descriptions, including an example with placeholder syntax and the requirement to match search_adbutler_api results. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Get the full schema (parameters, request body shape, response shape) for one AdButler API endpoint.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_adbutler_api (which finds endpoints) and call_adbutler_api (which invokes them).

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?

It explicitly provides usage context: 'Use after search_adbutler_api to understand exactly what to send when you call it.' This tells the agent when to use it relative to its sibling tools, establishing a clear workflow: search, describe, then call.

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