ym_describe_method

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate the read-only nature. It adds useful context by listing what the catalog record includes (safety level, pagination style, rate limit), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like failure modes or auth requirements.

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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The enumerated fields are directly useful to an agent deciding whether this tool returns what it needs.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient. The only notable gap is the operation_id sourcing and format, which is not explained in either the schema or the description.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for explaining operation_id. It only indirectly implies that operation_id identifies the endpoint ('for one endpoint'), but gives no guidance on its format, where to obtain it, or how it relates to the search/map tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full catalog record for one endpoint'), then enumerates exactly what the record contains. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like call_method or search_methods, which execute or discover endpoints rather than describe them.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need metadata about a single known endpoint. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as ym_search_methods or ym_map for discovering operation_id values.

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