describe_endpoint

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that server-managed auth and QoS headers are omitted and instructs not to supply them, and it explains the output (operation plus reachable schemas). Since annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, this extra detail is valuable and doesn't contradict.

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, front-loaded with the core function, followed by concrete output description and a clear instruction. No unnecessary words.

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 existence of an output schema and the read-only annotation, the description covers what the tool returns, the intended use case, and an important behavioral note about headers. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call 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?

The schema provides a full description of the operation_id parameter with format and example, so the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. With 100% schema description coverage, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to describe an OpenAPI operation and its schema closure. It specifies the verb 'describe', the resource (an OpenAPI operation), and the additional detail of returning reachable schemas. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_endpoints (listing) and call_endpoint (calling).

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 a usage scenario: when you need to understand the schema of an endpoint to build request bodies and responses without the full spec. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it's clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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