describe_endpoint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it 'Return[s]' information, without mentioning read-only behavior, error conditions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for transparency.

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 a single concise sentence (8 words) that is front-loaded and free of redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary detail.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description gives a general idea but lacks specifics about response structure or error handling. It is adequate given the tool's simplicity but not comprehensive enough to score higher.

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 covers both parameters with clear descriptions and examples (e.g., /auth/login, POST). The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 function: 'Return summary, description, parameters & responses for one endpoint.' The verb 'Return' and the specific resource 'one endpoint' make the purpose explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_endpoints_by_tag (listing multiple endpoints) and generate_request_example (creating an example).

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 implies usage for a single endpoint ('for one endpoint') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No direct guidance is given, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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