Describe Lucky API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the context that the tool operates on cataloged endpoints and that the id is a catalog id, but it does not disclose error behavior, missing-id handling, or the shape of the returned description. This is acceptable but not rich.

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, focused sentence: 'Describe one cataloged Lucky endpoint by catalog id.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no filler, and every word earns its place.

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 a simple read-only tool with one required parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what the id parameter means. It could mention that catalog ids come from the sibling lucky_api_catalog tool, but that is more of a usage guideline than a correctness requirement for invoking this tool.

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?

The input schema provides only a bare 'id' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by identifying the parameter as a 'catalog id', giving it meaningful role semantics. It could add more detail about where the id comes from or its format, but the core meaning is conveyed.

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 states a specific verb, 'Describe', a clear resource, 'one cataloged Lucky endpoint', and the required scoping mechanism, 'by catalog id.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like lucky_api_catalog (which likely lists endpoints) and lucky_api_call (which likely invokes endpoints).

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 when a catalog id is known and a single endpoint description is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or mention that catalog ids can be obtained from lucky_api_catalog. It provides no when-not or exclusion guidance.

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