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

Exceptional disclosure beyond the annotations: writes are rolled back, yet the rollback does not undo sequence numbers, outbound database calls, session locks, or the daily call quota — non-obvious side effects that annotations (destructiveHint=false) would otherwise hide. It also states the authorization prerequisite (admin-scope token, platform-supplied key) and that responses reflect real grants and row policies.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then side effects, then authorization. Six short sentences with no filler; the quota caveat earns its place because it is a real cost of an operation labelled non-destructive.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers auth, rollback semantics and identity roles for a 9-parameter tool. It stops at 4 because it never tells the agent to enumerate methods first or what happens when the scoping parameters (organization, database) are ambiguous, leaving that entirely to the schema.

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; the description earns above that by classifying POST/PATCH/DELETE/function calls as rolled-back writes and by naming the role dimension, which reinforces the method and role enums with consequences. It does not add format detail for path, query or schema, which the schema already handles thoroughly.

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 concrete action (execute a real request against a Data API method through the gateway) and the acting identities (visitor/user/server), which is clearly distinct from setup-style siblings like data_api_grant or data_api_origins. It does not explicitly contrast itself with data_api_methods or whoami, both of which are adjacent in purpose, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the probe framing — you call it to see real grants, policies and refusals — but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use X instead when…' statement, and no mention that data_api_methods should be consulted first to discover valid paths. The agent must infer positioning from the sibling names.

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