crpt_describe_method

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the content of the record (including safety level and rate limit metadata) but says nothing about behavior when operation_id is unknown, error handling, or auth prerequisites.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, packing the verb, resource, and returned fields together. The field enumeration is somewhat redundant with the output schema, which keeps it from being maximally efficient, but it is still scannable.

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 one-parameter read tool this is adequate but not complete: an agent still does not know how to source a valid operation_id or what a failed lookup yields. The output schema carries the return-value burden, so the missing pieces are mainly the identifier's provenance and error behavior.

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% and the single parameter (operation_id) is undefined in the schema. The description only obliquely implies a one-endpoint selector ('for one endpoint') without naming operation_id, its format, or where to obtain it (e.g., from crpt_search_methods or crpt_map). This is weak compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Return the full catalog record for one endpoint,' then enumerates exactly what that record contains (method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination style, rate limit, params, doc URL). An agent can distinguish it from crpt_search_methods or crpt_call_method by intent, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Use for metadata lookup rather than invocation is implied by 'catalog record' and the read-only field list, but the description never states when to reach for this versus crpt_search_methods, crpt_get_section, or crpt_call_method. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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