Describe an API endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds what the response contains (name, location, type, allowed values, required flag, documentation text), which is useful because there is no output schema, but it does not cover error behavior or endpoint-not-found cases.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Returns' and the resource, with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 lookup with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies the missing return-field list that an output schema would otherwise provide. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though it never states the tool does not execute the endpoint.

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 100%: the service enum meaning and operation format are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('parameters of one endpoint'), and anchors it to the api_list_endpoints sibling as the source of the operation ID. It does not explicitly contrast with api_call_endpoint, so differentiation from that sibling is left to the agent's inference.

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?

No explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative is given. The reference to api_list_endpoints implies a list-then-describe workflow, but the description never states to use this before api_call_endpoint or that it is for inspection only.

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