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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It notes that the request uses the user's token, implying authentication context, but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or error handling. Since it can perform any HTTP method including DELETE, more transparency about destructive operations would be beneficial, but it is not contradictory.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and usage context. It includes useful examples and a documentation link, making it effective. It is slightly dense but every sentence serves a purpose, earning a high score.

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 that this is a raw request tool with 5 parametersable, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides solid guidance on when to use it and how to structure the path, but lacks details on other parameters and potential error handling. It is reasonably complete for a flexible utility, but could be enhanced with examples of body or query_params.

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% (none of the parameters are documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. The description explains 'path' as relative (e.g., '/leads/unsorted'), and mentions method implicitly, but does not explain 'body', 'query_params', or 'account'. However, the general-purpose nature and examples help, yet it does not fully compensate for all undocumented parameters.

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 it is a raw call to the Kommo v4 API for any endpoint, using the user's token. It explicitly names the tool as a fallback for endpoints without a dedicated tool, distinguishing it from the many sibling tools that cover specific resources.

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 'Use when there is no dedicated tool' and lists the domains (chats/Salesbot/arquivos/Kommo IA/webhooks/fontes/widgets/templates) that are not covered, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also gives examples of paths and a link to documentation, which is excellent.

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