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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this ('READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed'), clarifying that no other HTTP method is permitted. It adds the path-format constraint and passthrough nature but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or error behavior, so it adds value without being exhaustive.

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 tool's role and constraint, with no filler. The examples of valid paths earn their place by clarifying scope.

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 generic passthrough whose response is inherently arbitrary, the description covers what an agent needs: read-only constraint, path format, and escape-hatch scope. It could note that responses vary by endpoint, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so both `path` and `query` are already documented in the schema. The description's slash requirement and examples duplicate what the schema already provides, adding no meaning beyond it — the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (GET any Codat API path) and explicitly positions itself as the escape hatch for paths 'not wrapped by a dedicated tool', which cleanly distinguishes it from the ~27 dedicated sibling 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?

Clearly signals the usage context: a 'power-user escape hatch' for paths without a dedicated wrapper, which implicitly steers agents to prefer the dedicated tools first. It does not state this preference as an explicit rule or give a when-not condition, so it falls just short of 5.

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