get_demand_endpoint

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 only says 'Get details,' which implies a read operation, but does not clarify return format, error handling, authorization requirements, or whether there are any side effects. This is minimal and leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), so the description plus schema cover basic invocation. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally say more about the return value or error behavior to be fully complete. It is minimally viable but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Demand endpoint ID.' The description's 'by ID' adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 'Get details of a specific demand endpoint by ID' clearly identifies the verb (get), the resource (demand endpoint), and the scope (specific, by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_demand_endpoints, create_demand_endpoint, and update_demand_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 implies the tool is used when you need details for a single demand endpoint and know its ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_demand_endpoints, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is discernible but not directly stated.

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