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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only 'authorised' tools can be called and that a lean response budget applies, plus gates broad nested responses behind allow_broad_response. However, since this proxy can invoke any tool including mutating ones, the absence of any statement about side effects, reversibility, or error behavior is a meaningful gap.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action plus the exact-name requirement are front-loaded. The leading whitespace and quoted wrapping are cosmetic noise rather than a structural problem.

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 four-parameter proxy with a nested arguments object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description explains the workflow well but never indicates what the caller receives back (presumably the target tool's result, possibly trimmed by the lean budget). An agent must infer the return contract and failure modes.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the nested arguments object and its guidance to consult raq_get_tool_schema. The description only reinforces the 'exact tool name' requirement and adds no format or example detail beyond the schema's own task_board_list_boards example.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Call one authorised Raq.com MCP tool by exact tool name'. It also frames the tool's role as a progressive gateway that reaches a large catalogue indirectly, which separates it from simple lookup tools like raq_search_tools without naming them directly.

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 gives a clear workflow — keep the catalogue out of context, fetch a schema when needed, then invoke the selected tool here — which implicitly routes the agent to raq_get_tool_schema first when the inputs are unknown. It stops short of explicit exclusions or stating what to do when the named tool is not available.

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