get_endpoint_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool makes a 'live call' to fetch spec from the service's OpenAPI doc, explains it is free, and outlines the two output modes. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a read-only spec tool.

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?

Two sentences, each adding value: the first front-loads the free/no-wallet differentiator and what the tool returns, the second explains the two call modes. No fluff or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description explains the expected return content (price, input JSON schema, worked examples) and covers both invocation patterns. It doesn't describe the response format in detail, but that's not critical for a specification tool. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 optional 'path' parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including an example ('congress-stock-trades'). The description adds that passing a path yields 'full detail', but this is a minor enhancement over the schema's own description. Baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 provides 'Live call spec for the gov-transparency routes: price, input JSON schema, and worked request/response examples from the service's OpenAPI doc.' This verb+resource construction is specific and distinct from sibling data-fetching tools, and it mentions the exact scope of routes.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: 'Call with no arguments to list all nine routes, or pass a path for full detail.' This tells the agent when to use each form, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it. The 'FREE — no wallet needed' note also informs preconditions.

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