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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries real extra weight: it states the hard constraint that only GET is permitted, that the path is relative to /v1, and that the default target is the regional API versus the auth host. It omits pagination, error, and rate-limit behavior, which matters for a raw pass-through tool, but the core behavioral envelope is disclosed.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the escape-hatch framing and the READ-ONLY constraint before the mechanical path/host details. 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?

No output schema exists, and the description implies the raw Scalingo API response is returned verbatim ('Scalingo API: GET {path}'), which is probably sufficient for a passthrough. What is missing is how non-2xx responses or paginated collections surface, which is the main residual gap for this tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: a concrete path example beyond the schema's, and a list of the resource families that require on_auth_host. The query object is left to the schema, which is adequate since it is a free-form passthrough.

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+resource (raw GET against any Scalingo API path) and frames it precisely as a power-user escape hatch for endpoints no dedicated tool wraps. An agent can immediately distinguish this from the 21 typed siblings such as get_app or list_regions.

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 an explicit selection rule: use this only for paths 'not wrapped by a dedicated tool', which directly routes the agent to the typed siblings first. It also gives a sub-case routing rule (set on_auth_host for regions, scm_integrations, tokens) so the two host targets are distinguishable.

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