describe_operation

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

Read-only behavior is already covered by the readOnlyHint annotation, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds useful context about the returned schema information for different service types, but it does not discuss authentication needs, error behavior, or any other operational constraints.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by useful protocol-specific detail. The wording is somewhat telegraphic, but every sentence contributes relevant information.

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?

The tool has an output schema and clear read-only annotations, so the description need not explain return values in full. It covers the most important operation-format semantics, though it leaves the environment parameter and some service-selection context implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining the parameters. It does a good job explaining how the operation parameter should be formed for Profile, SOAP, and REST services, though it does not explain the environment parameter or clearly define the service parameter beyond protocol context.

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 that the tool returns the input/output schema of an operation, and it distinguishes the expected operation identifier formats for Profile, SOAP, and REST services. It does not explicitly compare itself with siblings such as describe_service, list_operations, or call_operation, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 that this tool is used to inspect an operation before calling it, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as list_operations or describe_service. The protocol-specific operation formats provide useful usage context, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative-routing guidance.

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