Call an allowlisted Lucky API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true. The description adds value by enumerating specific blocked dangerous operations (login, restore, reboot, process kill, etc.), which helps the agent understand safety boundaries beyond the bare annotation flags. It doesn't contradict the annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 only two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the tool's purpose, follows with safety constraints, and ends with a routing directive. Every sentence earns its place.

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 generic escape-hatch tool, the description is incomplete. It never points the agent to lucky_api_catalog or any other way to discover which APIs are allowlisted, nor does it explain request construction or response behavior. With no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and only blocked categories listed, an agent lacks critical operational detail needed to call this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining method, path, query, and body. It does not explain any of these parameters, how to construct a path, what values are valid, or how body/query should be structured. The schema only provides enum and pattern, leaving the semantics almost entirely unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as an 'escape hatch for allowlisted Lucky APIs,' naming the verb (call) and resource (API). It differentiates from the many dedicated lucky_* siblings by stating that dedicated tools should be preferred. However, the exact scope of 'allowlisted' is not defined in the description, so a bit of ambiguity remains.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: 'Prefer dedicated tools when one exists.' It also lists forbidden operation categories (login, admin password, OpenToken, 2FA, restore, reboot, OAuth login, process kill), which tells the agent when this tool should not be used. This is strong, actionable usage direction.

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