get_api_endpoint_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only ('Get') and that it returns 'full endpoint details including request/response schemas', which communicates the kind of data returned. However, it omits error behavior or permission requirements, which would be useful but are not critical for a simple getter.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to specifying the tool's function and return content.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 required params, no nested objects) and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete for a basic retrieval. It identifies what is returned, though a list of exact response fields would be helpful given the absence of an output schema, but this is not a major 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?

The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about the parameters (e.g., how they work together or what format the path should take), so it does not surpass the schema's coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('endpoint details') and adds the scope 'including request/response schemas', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_api_endpoints (likely for listing) and get_api_schema (likely for full-spec schemas).

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_api_endpoints or get_api_schema. The description gives no context for choosing this tool over similar API-spec tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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