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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; the description reinforces this with 'READ-ONLY — only GET is allowed' and adds that it returns parsed JSON. It does not cover auth requirements, error behavior for invalid paths, or pagination handling, so it is useful but not rich.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the tool's role, then the hard constraint, then the path format, then the return. No filler sentences.

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 pass-through with no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraint, input format, and a brief return statement. Auth requirements and error semantics are the only meaningful omissions.

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% and the schema already gives the exact format plus a '/donations?limit=50' example, so the description mostly restates it. The added {uuid} path example and the emphasis that the query string must be included in the path are minor value-adds over 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 (GET), resource (any Raisely API path), and explicitly scopes itself as the escape hatch for paths 'not wrapped by a dedicated tool', which distinguishes it from the ~22 named read siblings. An agent can route to it without opening its 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 condition for use: only paths that no dedicated tool covers, and repeats the READ-ONLY / GET-only constraint. It implies but never states the ordering rule (prefer a dedicated tool first), so it falls just short of explicit 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.