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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new disclosure: sensitive material (transfer codes, private keys, tokens, subscriber lists, data exports) is never returned, which tells the agent something about the result envelope that no annotation conveys. It stops short of saying what happens on an invalid path or what the response shape is.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with zero filler. The middle clause listing covered endpoints is dense but every element earns its place; the redaction note at the end is well placed as a caution. Slightly overloaded for two sentences, but no waste.

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 2-parameter generic passthrough with full annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: which paths are legal, how to format them, where query params go, and what data will be withheld. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid path, unknown endpoint) which is a minor gap given the annotations carry the risk profile.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns an increment by supplying a worked example path ('/api/organizations/12/dns-zones/34/advisor') that shows the id-substitution convention the agent must follow — information the schema only gestures at with 'with ids filled in'. The query parameter is not discussed in prose, but the schema's own example covers it.

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?

States a specific verb (GET request), the exact resource scope (InfraNest public API reference, with URL), and explicitly positions itself as the fallback for endpoints the other tools don't cover. The three concrete examples (advisor findings, nameserver health, monitor dependencies) make the scope unmistakable against the 40+ typed siblings.

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 phrase 'for what the other tools do not cover' is an explicit when-to-use rule that routes the agent away from specialized siblings and toward this generic escape hatch. The sample path shows how to invoke it correctly, and the enumeration of example resource types anchors the decision.

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