get_api_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool returns markdown and defaults to overview. However, it does not discuss error handling, what happens with invalid doc parameter, or any limitations. The mention of 'so Claude can read...' gives context but not detailed behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second explains default and optional parameter. No wasted words.

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 is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers core functionality and default behavior. It could mention error handling or return format details, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, it is mostly complete.

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?

Input schema has one optional parameter 'doc' with description listing options. Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only the default value ('overview'), which provides marginal additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's verb (Get) and resource (Rebillia API documentation as markdown). It explains the default behavior (returns overview) and the purpose (so Claude can read base URLs, auth, etc. without external fetches). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are all operational data retrieval/manipulation tools.

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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: when you need API documentation, especially the overview for base URLs, auth, etc. It also explains the default and optional doc parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but there are no alternative documentation tools among siblings.

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