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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description reinforces it with an enforcement-level constraint ('READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed') and adds behavioral context the annotations lack: the response envelope { meta, response }. It doesn't cover auth requirements or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's nature, then the constraint, then the parameter format with examples. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 single-parameter escape hatch with no output schema, the description supplies the missing piece — the return shape { meta, response } — and covers the path construction rule. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the path must INCLUDE any query string, and it provides two concrete examples covering both a filtered collection and a single-resource lookup. That materially improves correct invocation.

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 uses a precise verb+resource framing ('GET any Accelo API path') and immediately distinguishes itself from the dedicated get_/list_ siblings by scoping to paths 'not wrapped by a dedicated tool.' An agent can tell exactly what this does and when it differs from the 20+ specific tools.

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 states the selection condition clearly ('any API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool'), which implicitly routes the agent toward the dedicated tools first. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule (e.g., 'prefer get_task over this for task reads'), so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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