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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces READ-ONLY and only GET allowed. It adds important behavioral details: path format after /v1, default regional API, and auth host targeting. No contradictions.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words. The most critical information (purpose, read-only constraint, path format, auth host option) is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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?

Given the tool is a generic read-only API request, the description adequately covers usage, parameters, and limitations. No output schema exists, but the description implies the response is the raw API output. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the path format relative to /v1, the default behavior for on_auth_host, and example usage, going beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states it is a 'power-user escape hatch' for GET requests to any Scalingo API path not covered by dedicated tools. It uses specific verb (GET) and resource (any API path), and distinctly differentiates from sibling tools which are specific endpoints.

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 description explicitly states when to use: for API paths not wrapped by dedicated tools, and only for GET operations. It also explains how to use the on_auth_host parameter. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context implies avoiding if a dedicated tool exists, which is sufficient.

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