action1_get_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'Get full detail' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any non-obvious behaviors such as potential latency, authentication requirements, error behavior for nonexistent IDs, or data freshness. Since it is a straightforward getter, the basics are clear, but there is no added behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is clear and concise, and no part of it is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the minimal description is largely sufficient. It states what the tool does and the one-line scope is enough. However, it could mention that it complements action1_list_endpoints (which lists endpoints) or that it provides 'full detail' in contrast to list views. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap, so 4 rather than 5.

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 parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., org_id defaulting, endpoint_id source from action1_list_endpoints, include_update_counts rationale and default). The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get full detail for one managed endpoint' uses a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (managed endpoint), and a specific scope (one). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_list_endpoints, which list many endpoints, and action1_get_endpoint_group_members, which returns members of a group. No ambiguity or tautology.

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 implies a use case: you need full details for a single endpoint. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions (e.g., 'use list_endpoints to get multiple endpoints'). The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself offers no direct guidance.

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