Get the generated OpenAPI document

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class, but does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, response size, or that the document is generated (not cached). The annotation openWorldHint is not addressed.

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 very short with no wasted words. However, the first sentence is redundant with the title, slightly reducing efficiency. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the HTTP operation and auth class but does not describe what the OpenAPI document contains or how to interpret the response. Given the simplicity, it meets the minimum but could be more helpful.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description mentions the endpoint and auth class but these are not parameter-related.

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 title and description clearly state the tool retrieves the generated OpenAPI document. The description adds the specific endpoint (GET /api/openapi.json) and authorization class (public), which uniquely identifies its purpose among many sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_get_health or pc_get_companies. The usage context is implied but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mentions of when not to use it.

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