execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses key behaviors: server-held key, returns only the result, requires login, isolated sandbox, query must be literal, and detailed error/overflow handling. It even explains that overflow is retained server-side and not lost.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then clarifies query semantics, then systematically presents error handling in bullets. The structure is logical and scannable, with no redundant or filler content.

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 complexity of this tool (auth, sandboxing, error codes, overflow, multiple fallback paths), the description is completely adequate. It explains return value shapes, error strategies, and references to sibling tools (connect_info, onboard, fetch_result). No output schema exists, so it compensates fully.

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 must compensate. It does thoroughly: tool_id is explained as coming from the '→' row of 'recommend', and query is defined as the LITERAL, self-contained input, with a concrete counterexample to prevent misuse. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Run a tool server-side via HyperRoute's proxy.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('tool server-side'), and clearly distinguishes this from alternatives by declaring it 'the ONLY sanctioned way to run an external tool.'

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it's the only sanctioned way to run an external tool, and error handling tells the agent when to try another tool, perform the task natively (use_native), or onboard the user. This is clear the context.

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