find_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the filtering logic, return fields, and a version requirement. It implies a read-only operation but does not verify that explicitly. The description adds value beyond what annotations would provide, as there are none.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence covers purpose and filtering logic; the second covers prerequisites and return fields. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The description includes return fields and a version requirement, which is adequate for a search tool with no output schema. It lacks details on pagination or limits, but for a simple filter tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the AND'd filter behavior and notes that path uses fnmatch glob, which is already in the schema. It does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema descriptions provide, resulting in a score of 3.

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 the tool finds OpenAPI operations by path, method, and/or tag, and mentions return fields. It distinguishes from siblings like list_endpoints_by_tag and find_operations_using_schema by supporting multiple combined filters.

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 explains that filters are AND'd and requires indexing v1.18+, giving context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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