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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description reinforces this and adds the useful constraint that only GET is permitted (no POST/PUT/DELETE). It does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or how errors/raw payloads come back, so with annotations carrying the main burden a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's role, then the safety constraint, then the path format. No sentence is redundant or padded.

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 raw pass-through GET with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the read-only constraint, and the path format. The unavoidable unknown (arbitrary response shape) is inherent to a raw API escape hatch, so little 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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the leading-slash path format with an example but says nothing about the optional 'query' object, adding no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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) and resource (any Knack API path), and explicitly scopes it to paths 'not wrapped by a dedicated tool'. An agent can distinguish this from knack_get_record or knack_list_records without opening any schema, since the escape-hatch role is stated outright.

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 usage context ('power-user escape hatch') and an exclusion condition — use it only for paths not covered by a dedicated tool — with 'view-based reads' as a concrete example. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tools to prefer, so routing is slightly inferential rather than explicit.

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