api_moved_to_httpsrapidapi_comoneapiprojectapizllw_worki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only mentions an API move and subscription details, with no information on what the tool does (e.g., read/write operations, side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs). This leaves the agent with no understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 brief but not appropriately structured for a tool definition; it is front-loaded with a warning emoji and administrative text, but lacks functional content. Every sentence fails to earn its place as it does not describe the tool's purpose or usage, making it inefficient and under-specified rather than concise.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a description that omits functional details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, its inputs/outputs, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent unable to use it effectively. This is inadequate even for a simple tool with one parameter.

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% description coverage, with the single parameter 'new_url' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it repeats the URL and subscription details. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description does not compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 fails to state what the tool does; it only provides a migration notice about an API move. The tool's name suggests it might be related to an API, but the description gives no functional purpose (e.g., what operations it performs). This is misleading as it implies the tool is for migration rather than its actual function, which is unclear.

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?

There are no guidelines on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description mentions checking the params tab and a new URL, but this is administrative information, not usage guidance. It does not specify the tool's intended context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it unhelpful for an AI agent.

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