get_api_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'inspect' and mentions a behavior (response size control with compact=true), but it doesn't explicitly state absence of side effects, authentication needs, or failure handling. The hint about oversized responses is useful but not a thorough 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?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds usage context and a practical tip. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main job, typical use, and a parameter tip. It does not specify return format or error behavior, but those are likely inferable from the enumerated content and the simple nature of a lookup tool. Minor omissions keep it from a 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds a platform-specific note about Claude/Desktop for compact, which is mildly helpful but largely redundant since the schema already explains the parameter's purpose. 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 states a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('one provider'), and enumerates the type of information returned (endpoint names, params, pricing, auth, docs). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like discover_apis and call_api.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use ('Good when the agent needs endpoint names, params, pricing, auth, or docs') and spatial-temporal context ('after discovery'). It also provides a practical tip about compact=true for response size. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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