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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond those hints: the GET-only constraint, the trailing-slash requirement, and the reason writes must be routed elsewhere. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the scope, the method/routing rule, and the path formatting tip are all essential.

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 generic raw-read fallback, the description plus annotations adequately cover safety, path prefix requirements, and method. The lack of an output schema means return-value details are unstated, but the raw-read nature makes this acceptable; query semantics remain the main gap.

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 schema documents the path parameter but not the query parameter, and schema coverage is only 50%. The description adds a concrete path example and reinforces the trailing-slash rule, but it does not explain the query object's role or format, which would help an agent use it correctly.

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 verb ('Read'), a resource ('any Split API path'), and a clear boundary ('not covered by a dedicated tool'), while adding the method constraint 'GET only'. This distinguishes it from the many get/list sibling tools as the generic fallback.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: any path not covered by a dedicated tool. It also gives a negative rule by stating that writes must go through the specific tool so confirmation rules apply, which helps an agent route correctly.

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