Describe an Officient API endpoint

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

The description complements annotations by confirming the tool is read-only and requires no network call or scope. It lists exactly what information is returned (path/query params, request body schema, example, scope, docs URL). This adds context beyond the annotations, which already indicate readOnlyHint=true. No contradictions.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core detail and key notes (no network call, no scope). It is concise but includes all important aspects without fluff. Minor improvement could merge the READ-ONLY note into the first sentence, but overall effective.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what it returns, and its safe nature. It references the sibling tool 'officient_request' for the intended usage sequence. Complete enough for the agent to use 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 single parameter operationId is described in the schema as 'Operation id exactly as returned by officient_list_endpoints, e.g. "add-event".' The description repeats this nearly verbatim, so it adds no additional semantic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. No improvement.

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: providing full detail for one Officient API endpoint, including parameters, body schema, example, required scope, and docs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like officient_list_endpoints (listing) and officient_request (making requests). The use of 'describe' as verb with 'endpoint' as resource is specific.

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 explicitly says 'Use before calling officient_request,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. It also notes 'no network call, no scope needed,' which helps the agent understand it's safe and quick. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other sibling tools for deeper context.

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