hh_describe_method

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the record includes scope, safety level, pagination style and rate limit, which hints at what the agent learns, but it discloses nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or whether unknown operation_ids are handled.

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. It is efficient, though the trailing field list is somewhat padded given an output schema already enumerates the return shape.

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-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers the purpose but leaves the parameter unexplained and offers no routing guidance relative to its many siblings. Adequate but with a clear gap around how to obtain a valid operation_id.

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 required parameter (operation_id) is never mentioned. The phrase 'for one endpoint' loosely implies an endpoint identifier, but nothing explains where an operation_id comes from (e.g., hh_search_methods) or its expected format.

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 the record's contents, so an agent can tell it apart from hh_search_methods or hh_call_method. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no sentence about when to use this over hh_search_methods (find endpoints) or hh_get_section (browse a section). The agent must infer that this is the pre-call inspection step from the purpose alone; no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given.

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