Describe API endpoint

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation, and the description adds useful detail about the returned information: path parameters, query parameters with allowed values, and the full request body schema. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only schema lookup.

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 one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause earns its place by enumerating the returned schema details.

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 three-parameter, read-only endpoint-description tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what kinds of API details will be returned. It is slightly incomplete in not relating the tool to search_endpoints or api_request.

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 67%, with path and verbose documented but method left undocumented. The description does not explain the method, path, or verbose inputs beyond the schema, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds much input-level meaning.

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 and resource: it 'shows how to call one App Store Connect API endpoint' and lists what details are returned. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from relevant siblings such as search_endpoints or api_request.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent is not told whether to use search_endpoints first to find a path or api_request afterward to call it.

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