get_endpoint_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only that it 'gets' documentation, without disclosing whether this is read-only, requires permissions, or what happens on invalid input. It also doesn't mention the output structure, though an output schema exists.

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 one sentence plus an Args block, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise and structured, with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameter but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details. The existence of an output schema means return format doesn't need to be described, but the description could mention how to discover valid endpoint types (e.g., via list_available_endpoints).

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 input schema provides only a title 'Endpoint Type' with no description. The description's Args section compensates by explaining the parameter is the name of an endpoint type and gives examples ('RestfulApi', 'Create', 'List'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'detailed documentation and configuration options for a specific clearskies endpoint type.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'list_available_endpoints' by focusing on a single endpoint type rather than enumerating 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?

The description implies usage when you need details about a known endpoint type ('for a specific...'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_available_endpoints' or other 'get_*_info' siblings. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool references, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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