describe_operation

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

Read-only and closed-world hints are already declared in annotations, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what SOAP returns (input_schema, example_params, output_schema). It does not mention error behavior for invalid operations or environment scoping, so it only modestly exceeds annotation coverage.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and format variants packed in without filler. Dense and efficient, though the SOAP/REST formatting could be marginally clearer in structure.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail need not be explained, and the operation-param format is covered. But for a three-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the meaning of service and environment (and how environment affects the lookup) is left entirely to inference, which is a real gap.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It gives concrete format guidance for the operation parameter (SOAP operation name, or REST 'METHOD /path' / operationId from the OpenAPI document), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about the service or environment parameters, leaving two of three undocumented.

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 purpose: returns the input/output schema of an operation, and characterizes the resource as an operation rather than a service, distinguishing it from siblings like describe_service. The SOAP-vs-REST formats for the operation identifier are spelled out. It stops short of explicitly naming competing siblings, but an agent can tell what it does.

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 the format of the operation parameter but gives no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus describe_service, check_service, or the call tools. There are no prerequisites or exclusions; the agent must infer that this is the tool for inspecting an operation's schema before invoking it.

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