ms_describe_method

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that the tool returns a catalog record, reinforcing its read-only nature. It also lists the fields returned, providing transparency about the output. No contradictions.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently enumerates the output fields without any redundancy. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, defined output) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose. It lists the returned fields, though it could mention that the operation_id must correspond to a valid endpoint.

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 sole required parameter operation_id has no schema description (coverage 0%), and the description does not elaborate on its meaning or how to obtain it. The agent is left guessing what value to provide, which is a significant 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?

The description clearly states it returns a full catalog record for one endpoint, listing specific fields (method, host, path, scope, safety level, pagination style, rate limit, params, doc URL). This sufficiently distinguishes it from siblings like ms_search_methods (which likely searches) and ms_call_method (which executes).

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 description implies usage for retrieving details of a specific endpoint but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ms_search_methods. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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