Raw ECFS API request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that the api_key is injected automatically and must not be supplied, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or that the response is a raw ECFS payload. That is modest added context for a pass-through 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?

Two tight sentences, with the escape-hatch role front-loaded and the credential caveat immediately after. No filler.

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 passthrough whose parameters are fully documented in the schema and which has no output schema, the description covers role and the one gotcha (auto api_key) an agent must know. It could say more about response shape or failure modes, but little is strictly missing.

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%, with both parameters documented (path with base URL and examples, params with api_key exclusion), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the api_key auto-injection already in the schema, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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 ('calling any ECFS public API path/query parameters') and explicitly frames itself as the escape hatch for what the other tools don't cover, distinguishing it from all seven siblings by name of function.

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?

Clearly says to use it for endpoints or parameters not covered by the other tools, which is a real when-to-use condition. It does not, however, warn when NOT to use it (e.g. prefer a typed sibling when one exists) beyond the implicit 'not covered' clause.

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