api_operation_schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful workflow note that it should be read before advanced requests, but says nothing about the return format or what 'reviewed fields' actually contain.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the retrieval purpose plus the ordering hint are front-loaded. Efficient, though the first sentence is cryptic rather than precise.

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 an openWorld, no-output-schema tool whose only parameter is undocumented, the description is too thin. It neither explains the operationId input nor what the returned schema/requirements contain, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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 operationId is entirely undocumented. The description does not mention operationId, its format, or where to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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 verb is clear ('Get') but the resource is muddled: 'reviewed fields, source and review requirements' does not plainly say it returns an API operation's schema/metadata. An agent can roughly infer it retrieves schema-like info for an operation, but the phrasing is vague and does not clearly distinguish it from the sibling api_operations.

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?

'Read this before advanced requests' is a real, if terse, usage cue establishing a prerequisite/ordering relationship. However it never names the alternative tool (api_operations) or defines what qualifies as an 'advanced request', so the guidance stays implied rather than explicit.

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