get_endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no permission requirements, no error behavior for an unknown ID, no note on whether the returned endpoint is scoped to an org/product. 'Get' weakly implies read-only, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded. The 'Args:' block is boilerplate that duplicates the schema's own endpoint_id property, adding bulk without 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?

This is a simple single-entity getter with a one-field schema and an output schema that already documents the return shape, so the bar is low. The description covers purpose and the required identifier, though the absence of any annotation context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter and the description's 'The endpoint ID' merely restates the schema field name without adding format, source, or lookup context. For a single trivially-named param this is the minimum viable level.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single endpoint by ID'), and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_endpoints. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list_endpoints or how an endpoint_id is obtained. The agent must infer the lookup use case entirely from the name.

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