Get plan endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Body fields: none' and the exact endpoint path, which is useful, but it does not describe response behavior, pagination, or any API-specific quirks beyond what the schema already notes.

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 action, then the exact HTTP path, then body requirements and a reference link. The first sentence repeats the tool name, but the remaining content is efficient and each part serves a purpose.

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 simple read-only list operation, the description plus annotations and schema provide enough to invoke the tool correctly: the path identifies the resource, the schema documents pagination parameters, and annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. A response shape is not described, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.

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 covers the query parameters with a description, but the required path parameter planId has no description in the schema. The description partially compensates by showing planId in the URL template, clarifying its placement, but it does not explain what planId represents or how to obtain it. Schema description coverage is 50%, so the description adds some but not enough semantic value.

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 ('Get plan endpoints') and includes the exact HTTP path, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like xmatters_create_plan_endpoint, xmatters_modify_a_plan_endpoint, and xmatters_delete_a_plan_endpoint. The GET method and 'endpoints' resource make the tool's purpose 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating, modifying, or deleting plan endpoints, nor does it mention any preconditions like needing a valid planId. The only context is the raw API path and a reference link, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent.

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