diadoc_describe_method

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, establishing this as a safe local catalog read, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the record's composition (scope, safety level, pagination, rate limit), which is useful, but since an output schema exists this mostly restates return content rather than adding deeper behavioral context.

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 that names the action first and then lists the record fields. No repetition or filler; every clause 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description needn't explain return values or side effects. It is nearly complete; the only omission is where operation_id comes from, though sibling discovery tools imply the workflow.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required operation_id, so the description carries the interpretive burden. It clarifies that operation_id identifies 'one endpoint' of the catalog, which adds some meaning, but gives no format, source, or example for the identifier.

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 (return) and resource (full catalog record for one endpoint) and enumerates exactly what the record contains. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like diadoc_search_methods or diadoc_get_section, though the description never explicitly contrasts 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?

Usage is implied: the tool takes an operation_id and returns details for that single endpoint, so an agent can infer it is a lookup step after discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. search_methods).

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