get_api_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the result scope (path, parameters, response fields, caveats) but does not add deeper behavioral context like authentication or rate limits; given the read-only annotations, that is an acceptable baseline.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource ('api_type 의 상세를 반환합니다') and then lists the relevant result categories. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only/idempotent tool with an output schema and strong annotation hints, the definition is complete. The only potentially missing guidance—search_api first—is already supplied by the parameter schema, so an agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly.

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%, and the schema itself documents the single parameter thoroughly with examples and a 'don't guess; use search_api first' instruction. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the high-coverage baseline 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 action and resource: it returns the details of an api_type and enumerates the content (path, parameters, response fields, caveats). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling search_api in the main description, so it stops short of fully earning the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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 input schema's parameter description gives explicit workflow guidance: use the api_type value from search_api results exactly as-is, don't guess, and run search_api first. This names the alternative tool and the correct ordering, making when to use this tool unambiguous.

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