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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that only GET is allowed, the full path including query string is required, and the response is parsed JSON. This adds useful behavioral constraints beyond the annotation without contradiction.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the escape-hatch purpose, followed by the read-only constraint and precise path instructions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, how to format the parameter, and what is returned. The sibling list further helps the agent know which dedicated tools exist.

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% and the schema description already documents the path format. The description reinforces this with emphasis on the full path after the origin, including query strings, and provides concrete examples, going slightly beyond the schema baseline.

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 YCBM API path), and clearly frames itself as an escape hatch for paths not wrapped by a dedicated tool. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools without requiring an agent to compare schemas.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for any YCBM API path not wrapped by a dedicated tool, and warns that only GET is allowed, which excludes mutation use cases. This gives a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule, with dedicated tools as the alternatives.

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