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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds substantial context: bot role permissions constrain what can succeed, changes are immediate and irreversible, and every write is recorded in the app logs and server audit log. It also documents a non-obvious truncation contract with the {"truncated": true, "result": ...} shape and warns never to send a truncated list or string back to Discord because omitted items would be deleted.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and nearly every later sentence carries load-bearing information about truncation or irreversibility. The truncation/round-trip warning runs long and could be tightened, but no sentence is 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 six-parameter open-world passthrough with no output schema and no enums, the description covers discovery (search first), permissions, irreversibility, audit logging, and the exact shape and handling of truncated responses. An agent has everything needed to call it safely without guessing at return semantics.

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 app_id, operation, path_params, query, body and reason are all documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal guidance beyond that, hinting that limit and pagination query parameters are the way to retrieve data omitted by truncation.

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 and resource: sends a request to a Discord API endpoint using an app's bot token and returns the JSON. It is clearly the generic passthrough among siblings that otherwise expose narrow operations like create_message or list_channels, and it names search_discord_api as the endpoint-discovery step.

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 find the endpoint with search_discord_api first and to make only the changes the user asked for, which gives a clear workflow precondition and a scope limit. It does not say when to prefer a dedicated sibling tool (e.g. create_message) over this generic request, which is the one routing decision left to inference.

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