get_api_detail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full details including trust signals, verified_live boolean, and that it includes unverified APIs (unlike resolve/discover). This provides adequate behavioral context for a read operation, though no side effects are mentioned.

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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) with front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds unique information without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is thorough. It covers purpose, parameter usage, return fields, and differentiation from siblings. Sufficient for an agent to decide when to use and how to interpret results.

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% with a single parameter api_id described in schema. Description adds value by specifying the source of the API ID: 'returned by search_apis (recommended.id) or browse_apis (apis[].id)', which aids in correct invocation beyond schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool 'Get full details for a specific API by its ID' and lists returned fields including endpoint URL, pricing, capability, tags, agent compatibility, schema info, use cases, trust signals, and provider. It distinguishes from siblings by noting that unlike resolve/discover, detail also returns APIs not yet verified, and mentions trust_evidence and verified_live boolean.

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?

Description advises to 'Use this after resolve or discover to inspect a specific API before calling it,' providing clear context. It also recommends preferring trust_evidence.score over legacy trust_score for new clients, but does not explicitly list scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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