get_endpoint_definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read operation ('Get') and specifies what is returned (request/response schemas, params, examples). This goes beyond the schema, which only describes the input parameter. It lacks details about error behavior, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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 sentence that leads with the primary action ('Get the full OpenAPI-derived definition') followed by a concise parenthetical listing contents. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler information.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (schemas, params, examples) and the scope (specific endpoint by id). There is no pagination or error complexity to disclose. The description stands alone as complete context for invoking the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the endpointId parameter already includes a descriptive example ('create-spa-campaign'). The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond 'by id', which is already implied in the schema. Therefore, the description provides no extra semantic value for this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool gets the full OpenAPI-derived definition for a specific endpoint by id, including request/response schemas, params, and examples. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like list_endpoints (which lists endpoints) and get_service_details (which gets service-level details).

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 makes it clear that this tool requires a specific endpoint id and returns the definition for that single endpoint, implying it should be used when detailed schema information for one endpoint is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using list_endpoints to discover ids first.

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