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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by explaining that paths are validated to only allow .get/.list/.check/.preview_* actions and write actions are rejected. This adds concrete behavioral detail beyond the annotation, though it does not cover auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The purpose, read-only guarantee, validation rule, and API call format are all front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

The description, schema, and annotations together give enough information to call the tool correctly: required path, optional body, allowed suffix classes, and read-only nature. It does not describe the response format, but for a raw pass-through endpoint that is a minor gap.

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 100%: both path and body are already documented in the input schema. The description adds the HTTP method ('POST') and general role of body as endpoint params, but does not materially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('POST') and resource ('any Autumn read/preview endpoint') and positions itself as an escape hatch for endpoints not wrapped by dedicated tools. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that wrap specific endpoints.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: for read/preview endpoints not covered by a dedicated tool. It also says when not to use it by noting write actions are rejected, and implicitly directs users toward dedicated tools when available.

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