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

Adds real behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it pins the allowed HTTP method (GET only), declares the escaping is read-only, and states the response envelope is { meta, response } — valuable given there is no output schema. It omits rate limits, pagination semantics, and error behavior for invalid paths.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the escape-hatch framing and the hard GET-only constraint before the mechanical path and return-shape details. Nothing redundant.

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 passthrough tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: the method restriction, exact path format, query-string handling, worked examples, and the return envelope.

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 adds non-obvious meaning: the path must be the FULL path after the host, start with '/', and include the query string entirely. The two inline examples showing filter syntax ('?_limit=1&_filters=status(1)') go beyond the schema's single 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?

States a specific verb and scope: 'GET any Accelo API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool.' It explicitly positions itself against the ~22 sibling get_/list_/create_ tools by defining itself as the fallback for what they don't cover, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule ('paths not wrapped by a dedicated tool') plus an implicit restriction (READ-ONLY, only GET is allowed), which tells the agent when this tool cannot be used. It stops short of naming a specific sibling as the preferred alternative or spelling out fallback behavior when a dedicated tool does exist.

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