minia2a_check_endpoint

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the nine validation signals, the return format (score 0-100%), and the per-check PASS/FAIL detail. This accurately sets expectations for behavior and output without contradicting the annotations.

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 moderately long but every component adds value: purpose, check list, return format, and usage note. The date and parenthetical example are minor extras, but the text is generally tight and front-loaded.

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 validation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what it checks, what it returns, and when to use it. It does not mention failure behavior or network prerequisites, but these are not essential for correct selection and invocation.

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 input schema already covers the single parameter (endpointUrl) with 100% description coverage and an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Validate'), a specific resource ('any x402 endpoint'), and a concrete purpose ('Claude Code auto-mode readiness'). It enumerates the exact checks, making it clearly distinguishable from siblings like minia2a_list_services and minia2a_call_service.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use this before calling a paid endpoint to verify it works with autonomous agents', which gives a clear when-to-use instruction. It does not mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the pre-call usage directive is actionable and sufficient.

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