Call a read-only ESI operation

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds some value by stating the declared-parameters constraint and the inability to select mutating operations. However, it misrepresents the allowed method set by saying 'GET/HEAD' while the schema's body parameter supports read-only POST operations, which is a meaningful behavioral omission.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: action comes first, followed by the parameter constraint and the mutation exclusion. 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 dispatch tool with no output schema, the description leaves important context unstated: it does not mention that responses follow the selected operation's schema, how to discover valid operationIds, or the read-only POST exception. The GET/HEAD vs POST body ambiguity further reduces completeness.

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 80%, so most parameters (path, query, headers, body) are already documented in the schema. The main description adds only that operationId selects the operation and that undeclared parameters are rejected, which is useful but not substantial enough to exceed the baseline.

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 action ('Execute'), the resource ('ESI GET/HEAD operation selected by operationId'), and the read-only scope, which distinguishes it from the sibling search/inspection tools. However, the 'GET/HEAD' qualifier is too narrow because the body parameter schema explicitly mentions 'semantically read-only bulk lookup POST operations,' creating an internal inconsistency.

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 when-not guidance: mutating ESI operations cannot be selected and only schema-declared parameters are accepted. It does not name the sibling tools as alternatives for discovering or inspecting operations, so it stops short of full 5-level routing guidance.

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