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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden and discloses nothing: not whether this is a read or a mutation, not authorization requirements, not side effects, not idempotency behavior. The presence of an idempotency_key parameter hints at write semantics that the description never confirms or denies.

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 text is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification, and the parenthetical endpoint reference adds no actionable meaning for an agent. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no substance to order.

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 two-parameter action tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description should explain purpose, side effects, and parameter meaning. It does none of these, leaving the agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description supplies nothing about either parameter. It does not explain that city_id is the required scope key or what idempotency_key should contain or when it must be supplied.

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 only restates the tool name ("operator_query") and points to an HTTP endpoint of the same name, which is a tautology rather than an explanation. It never says what is being queried (operator status? pending actions? turn state?) or how it differs from sibling read tools like get_city, get_map, or get_turn_packet.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus the many sibling query tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent has no basis for choosing operator_query over get_turn_packet or get_city.

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