get_endpoint_spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: the call is free, live, sourced from the service's OpenAPI doc, and behaves differently depending on whether a path is provided.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the most important facts—free and what the tool returns—then gives precise invocation guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 introspection tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers invocation modes, what the returned spec contains, and cost semantics. An agent has enough information to select and call the tool 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 already documents the single 'path' parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema by explaining that omitting the path lists all nine routes while providing a path returns full detail. This clarifies optionality and default behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: getting the live OpenAPI spec for gov-transparency routes, including price, input JSON schema, and worked examples. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling data-retrieval tools by positioning itself as a meta/introspection tool rather than a data-fetching 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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use each invocation style: call with no arguments to list all nine routes, or pass a path for full detail. It also notes that the call is free and requires no wallet, which is useful context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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