get_endpoint_detail

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

The description discloses a useful behavioral trait: it automatically infers the corresponding service from the path, with an example. It also states what the response includes (parameters and responses). With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and adequately signals a read-only 'get' operation without explicit side effects.

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 two sentences long, with the first clearly stating the primary purpose and the second adding an essential behavioral detail. No redundant or excessive information is present.

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 tool's low complexity and the absence of output schema/annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and service selection logic. Minor gaps like error behavior are acceptable for this type of retrieval 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%, so the baseline per guidelines is 3. The description adds no new parameter meanings beyond the schema, and the auto-inference behavior is already mentioned in the swagger_url parameter description.

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 it retrieves detailed information for a single API endpoint, including parameter and response definitions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_endpoints and generate_api_code, which serve listing and code generation purposes respectively.

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 intended use case is clear: to fetch details for a specific endpoint identified by path and method. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the context inherently implies this tool is for single-endpoint detail lookup versus listing endpoints or services.

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