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 it ('READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed') and adds the /api path convention. It does not describe rate limits, auth requirements, or the shape/format of the raw response, which matters for a raw passthrough. Useful but not rich beyond the annotation.

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 escape-hatch framing, followed by the constraint and the path format. The trailing 'Quaderno API: GET {path}.' is mildly redundant but harmless.

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 read passthrough with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the constraint, and the path format, leaving the agent able to call it correctly. It could say more about the raw return payload, but the API-passthrough nature makes that largely implied.

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 both the required 'path' and optional 'query' are already documented in the schema. The description restates the path convention ('taken after /api') consistently with the schema but adds no syntax detail beyond it, so 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 (GET) and the exact resource scope (any Quaderno API path after /api), and explicitly frames itself as an escape hatch for paths 'not wrapped by a dedicated tool'. This distinguishes it cleanly from the many dedicated siblings like get_contact and list_invoices.

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?

The phrase 'not wrapped by a dedicated tool' establishes when to reach for this tool versus the dedicated siblings, and the example paths ('/tax_ids', '/evidence') show it targets the long tail. It stops short of an explicit 'prefer the dedicated tool when one exists' instruction, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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