lookup_endpoint

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It discloses significant behavior: detail=true returns a 'pruned operation' with specific elements (parameters, request body, representative responses, $ref resolution, x-omitted-response-codes). This is thorough, though it doesn't mention whether the operation is read-only or idempotent.

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 front-loaded with the main action and uses three well-formed sentences. It could be slightly more concise by removing 'representative subset of responses' detail, but overall it efficiently conveys necessary information.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description compensates well by detailing query formats and the effect of 'detail', but it does not specify the return structure when detail=false (likely a list of matches), leaving a minor gap.

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 100%, and the description adds substantial value beyond the schema: for 'query' it provides valid formats (path fragment, 'METHOD /path', keyword), and for 'detail' it explains the full meaning of the 'pruned operation' output.

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 specifies a precise action ('Look up Natural REST API endpoints'), identifies the source ('OpenAPI spec'), and details input formats (path fragment, 'METHOD /path', keyword), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle documentation.

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 endpoint lookup vs. doc browsing via siblings), but lacks explicit guidance on when to set detail=true vs false or when to prefer this over alternatives.

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