get_api_docs

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 that the tool returns markdown, defaults to overview, and allows selecting specific docs. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only or has no side effects, but the nature of the tool and the description strongly imply safety.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states core function; second explains default and parameter. Ideal length and front-loading.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (markdown). It covers default behavior and parameter options. Could mention that results are plain text or include a note about idempotency, but for a doc tool this is sufficient.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage (one optional parameter with description). The description adds value by listing example values and explaining that the overview contains base URLs, auth, etc. This goes beyond the schema's list of options.

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 it retrieves Rebillia API documentation as markdown. It specifies the default (overview) and lists optional doc types. This is distinct from all sibling tools which are CRUD operations, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use: 'so Claude can read base URLs, auth, pagination, dates, amounts without fetching external URLs.' This implies immediate use before other API calls. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the context makes it clear this is a documentation retrieval tool.

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