get_api_endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format distinction (compact summary vs full JSON schema) and hints at the raw parameter's effect. However, it omits information about error behavior (e.g., invalid path), authentication needs, or whether the tool is read-only (implied but not stated). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the main action and then explaining the optional parameter's effect. No superfluous words, excellent structure.

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 that an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. However, the description lacks context on how the path parameter should be used, what constitutes a valid endpoint, and what happens on error. Compared to the complexity (2 parameters, no enums), it is minimally complete but misses important usage context that an agent would need.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'raw=true' returns full schema, but does not clarify the format or expected input for 'path' (e.g., full path, relative, leading slash). No examples are given, which would greatly help. The description adds some value but falls short of compensating for low coverage.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('specific API endpoint'), and adds nuance about default compact summary vs full schema with raw parameter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_api_schema or search_api_schemas, so it loses a point.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives. For example, it does not mention that get_api_endpoint is for a single endpoint, while search_api_paths finds endpoints by pattern, or get_api_schema might return the entire schema. This leaves the agent without context for choosing correctly.

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