Run a contract-test pass across the whole API

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does it well: it discloses that this makes real calls, that it validates against documented schemas, that some endpoints are skipped, and that includeMutating can create or modify real data on the live API. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond simple action naming.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, exclusions follow, and the optional mutating mode is explained last. Every sentence contributes distinct information about scope, alternatives, or side effects.

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 description covers scope, exclusions, alternatives, and side effects thoroughly. A minor gap is the lack of stated return format or how results are reported, especially since no output schema exists. Still, the behavior is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 50%: auth and includeMutating have descriptions, but baseUrl and timeoutMs do not. The description adds valuable semantics for includeMutating (auto-generates params/bodies, risk of real writes) but does not compensate for the undocumented baseUrl and timeoutMs.

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 action ('calls each one for real and validates the response') on a well-defined resource ('every GET endpoint that needs no required parameters'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling test_endpoint by explicitly saying parameterized endpoints require that other tool.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: run across all parameter-free GET endpoints, and explicitly routes parameter-dependent endpoints to test_endpoint. It also states exclusions (DELETE/OPTIONS/HEAD never auto-run) and explains when to enable includeMutating, including the default-off warning.

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