Get Api Info

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

With readOnlyHint/openWorldHint already covering safety, the description adds substantive behavioral detail beyond the annotations: default limit 25, max 100, a hard client scan ceiling of 500 records / 4 pages, and explicit semantics that truncation surfaces as RESOLUTION_TRUNCATED rather than a partial answer. This is meaningful operational disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and tightly written across three sentences with no filler. Some phrasing ('satisfies the same floor') is internal jargon an agent may not parse, but the structure is efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers bounding, truncation, and routing. For a read-only, no-required-param tool this is largely sufficient, though the unresolved 'limit' and 'api_info.get' references leave minor ambiguity.

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 50%, so the schema documents 'identifier' and 'opts.expand' reasonably well. The description adds bounding info but references a 'limit' parameter that does not appear in the visible schema, and says nothing about what 'expand' or the identifier forms do — so it neither clarifies the real params nor cleanly compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'Return the API information document.' It further differentiates from the sibling hudu_search ('Not for text discovery'). However, the reference to 'api_info.get' as the preferred route is ambiguous since no such sibling is listed, slightly muddying what the tool's unique role is.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('Not for text discovery: call hudu_search') and names an alternative ('Prefer api_info.get'), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs. The alternative is not in the sibling set, though, so the routing advice is only partially actionable.

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