Raw ECFS API request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the api_key is injected automatically and that the tool targets public ECFS API paths. However, it does not disclose response format, error behavior, rate limits, validation behavior, or what happens for invalid paths, leaving some important behavior unstated for a generic raw-request tool.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('escape hatch') and immediately provides the single most important invocation detail ('api_key is added automatically'), making it easy to parse and act on.

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 tool with only two parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description plus schema is largely sufficient: the path is required, params are optional, and authentication is handled. The absence of an output schema and the generic nature of a raw request mean a little more context about response handling could help, but the tool is not missing any essential call-related information.

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%, and the schema already documents both 'path' and 'params' with clear meanings, including that 'params' should exclude api_key. The description mostly repeats this by saying the api_key is added automatically, adding little new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 calling 'any ECFS public API path/query parameters not covered by the other tools,' giving a specific verb and resource scope. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tools by explicitly targeting uncovered endpoints and parameters.

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 states when to use the tool: for endpoints or parameters 'not covered by the other tools,' which clearly routes an agent away from the specialized siblings. It also gives a practical prerequisite by noting the api_key is added automatically and should not be included. It does not explicitly enumerate the sibling alternatives, but the condition is otherwise clear.

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