rew_describe_api

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what is returned (schemas, request body, units, responses), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about cost, caching, or what happens if the operation_id is unknown.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists exactly what is retrievable and closes with the sequencing cue. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter, read-only metadata tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers purpose, content returned, and ordering relative to the call itself. The remaining gap is provenance of operation_id, which an agent must infer.

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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes almost no meaning. The description's 'a discovered operation's' hints that operation_id comes from a prior discovery/ search step, but it never states the format, source, or failure mode for that identifier.

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 names a specific verb (Read) and a specific resource (a discovered operation's parameter schemas, request body, units and responses), which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. It implicitly separates itself from rew_call_api via 'before calling it', though it never names that sibling or others explicitly.

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 phrase 'before calling it' gives a clear usage condition: introspect first, then invoke the operation. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer if the schema is already known, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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