sbis_describe_method

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the composition of the returned catalog record, which is useful context, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements or source of the operation_id. A 3 reflects that annotations carry the main behavioral burden.

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 front-loaded sentence that lists the record fields without filler. Every clause earns its place by telling the agent what the tool returns.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, though it does list them. It still omits how to obtain the required operation_id and any usage context relative to sibling tools, leaving gaps for a read-only metadata lookup.

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 description never names the required 'operation_id' parameter or explains its format or source. The phrase 'for one endpoint' loosely implies that the parameter identifies an endpoint, but this is not sufficient compensation for the missing parameter documentation.

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 a clear resource ('full catalog record for one endpoint'), then enumerates the record's fields. It does not name or explicitly contrast with siblings like sbis_search_methods or sbis_call_method, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 states what is returned but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sbis_search_methods, sbis_call_method, or sbis_get_section. It implies the tool is for a known single endpoint, but offers no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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