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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds that it returns a summary and lists the exact fields, clarifying the limited scope. No contradictions with 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 well-organized with headings and bullet points, making it easy to scan. While somewhat long, each section adds practical value and there is no redundant fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return value, usage context, and parameter format. It is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke and what to expect.

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 covers the parameter but only with 'Unique identifier'. The description adds a valuable detail: the ID is a 32-character MD5 hash, which helps the agent understand what value to provide. This goes beyond the schema.

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 it returns a quick summary of a single endpoint with specific fields (method, path, summary, deprecation status). It distinguishes itself from the `inspect` sibling tool by contrasting the summary level vs. full OpenAPI operation object.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'Do NOT use' sections provide clear guidance, including using `inspect` for technical details. This gives the agent concrete criteria for selection versus alternatives.

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