datto_edr_raw_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds material behavior: the token is injected automatically, object values in the query are JSON-encoded, and credential/token models are blocked server-side. It stops short of covering rate limits or any error/response shape, 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the routing rule, then the request mechanics, then the safety exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 an open-ended proxy tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation mechanics (URL shape, auth, encoding, blocked models) well. The main remaining gap is what an arbitrary GET returns or how errors surface, which is inherently hard for a generic endpoint but would still help.

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, but the description genuinely adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the JSON-encoding rule for object values and shows concrete forms for a LoopBack filter and a count path. That is semantic guidance the schema's example alone 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-plus-resource: a read-only escape hatch that issues GET requests to Datto EDR API endpoints not covered by typed tools. That framing immediately distinguishes it from every typed sibling (agents_list, alerts_get, etc.) and states the scope of what it targets.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance with 'Prefer typed tools', which tells the agent to try a typed sibling first, and it names a hard exclusion ('Credential and token models are refused'). That is both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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