get_api_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral effect of the 'compact' parameter (saves ~60% context window) and implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not mention other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description adds some context but leaves gaps for a tool with no 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides a practical usage tip. It is front-loaded with essential information and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, key parameters, and a usage optimization, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., response format, error handling) and does not fully compensate for the absence of structured fields. Adequate for a read tool but with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds meaning by explaining the benefit of 'compact=true' (saves ~60% tokens) and implies 'api_id' is for a specific provider, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific API provider', specifying what information is included (endpoints, pricing, features). It distinguishes from siblings like 'discover_apis' (likely listing APIs) or 'list_categories' (categorizing APIs) by focusing on detailed info for a single provider.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to get detailed info about a specific API provider) and includes a usage tip for the 'compact' parameter to save tokens. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'discover_apis' for broader listings).

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