Call a whitelisted read-only AGC endpoint

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: the exact allowlisted path prefixes, the fact that review/app-info paths are GET-only, and that publish/upload/reply/delete are structurally blocked. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behavior, so not a 5.

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 tool's role before the path list, and every sentence carries a constraint an agent needs. The long comma-separated allowlist is verbose but functional rather than filler, so no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, a brief note on response shape or error signaling would help, and auth prerequisites are unstated. However, for a passthrough whose returns are endpoint-dependent, the description covers the critical call-correctness constraints (allowed paths, method restrictions, blocked writes) adequately.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by coupling the method parameter to specific path families ('review/app-info paths accept GET only'), which is real semantic value the schema's plain GET/POST enum does not convey.

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+resource ('Generic GET/POST passthrough for AGC Connect API read endpoints') and immediately scopes it as the fallback for endpoints 'without a dedicated tool', which cleanly separates it from the twelve dedicated agc_* siblings. An agent can tell what it is and when it is the right choice without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'without a dedicated tool' gives clear selection context relative to siblings, and the enumerated path prefixes define the usable scope. It never names a specific sibling tool to prefer instead, and gives no exclusion beyond the write-operation note, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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