vsp360_describe_operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating what the response contains (method/path, permissions, prerequisites, parameters, request and response schemas), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited inventory and no filler. It is tight and readable, though the enumeration is broad rather than prioritized.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return contents and does so well, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. It stops short of covering error behavior or what happens if permissions/prerequisites are unmet.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the resourceType edge case scoped to analyticsRunQuery. The description contributes only a generic mention of 'parameters' and does not clarify operationId sourcing or the resourceType special case. 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?

States a specific verb (Show) and resource (one VSP 360 operation) plus the scope of returned metadata. It implicitly contrasts with vsp360_call_operation by framing itself as a lookup rather than an invocation, but never names a sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the inspection step before calling an operation. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no exclusions, and the dependency on vsp360_list_operations appears only in the schema's parameter description, not the description text.

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