get_endpoint_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it retrieves schema details for calling endpoints, specifies input validation requirements (valid path/method combinations from another tool), and outlines the return structure (APIResponse with schema or error). However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling specifics, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, prerequisites, and parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The Args and Returns sections are clearly formatted, making it easy to parse. No wasted words or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return behavior. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it appropriately focuses on contextual information like the relationship with 'list_api_endpoints'. No significant gaps remain for effective tool selection and 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'path' is described as 'The endpoint path (e.g., '/deputados/{id}')' and 'method' as 'The endpoint method (e.g., 'GET')', including examples. It also explains that these must be valid combinations from 'list_api_endpoints'. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definitions, though it doesn't detail format constraints beyond examples.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('detailed schema for a single API endpoint'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_endpoints' (which lists endpoints) and 'call_endpoint' (which executes calls). The description explicitly mentions what the schema reveals ('required and optional parameters'), making the 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this tool to understand exactly how to call a specific endpoint'. It also specifies prerequisites: 'The `path` and `method` must be a valid combination obtained from the `list_api_endpoints` tool', clearly indicating the relationship with a sibling tool and when not to use it (i.e., without valid inputs from that sibling).

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