Call any ReAI API endpoint

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

Even though annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds critical behavioral details: authentication and tenant header are handled automatically, write calls are subject to server write policy, and unrecognized write paths are treated as irreversible and blocked unless REAI_WRITE_MODE=full. This goes beyond the annotations to warn the agent about safety and policy enforcement.

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 concise, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. It covers purpose, usage workflow, and safety policy without unnecessary filler. The structure flows logically from 'what' to 'how' to 'warnings'.

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 high-risk escape-hatch tool with no output schema, the description provides complete guidance: how to use it, how to discover endpoints, how to check schemas, how authentication works, and what safety restrictions apply. It is fully contextualized within the sibling toolset and self-sufficient for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters and their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond clarifying that authentication/tenant header are handled, which helps with tenantId but is a minor addition. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Escape hatch: call any ReAI API endpoint directly,' which clearly states the verb (call), resource (any ReAI API endpoint), and scope. It distinguishes itself from curated tools by noting it covers what they do not, and provides a clear path to discovery via reai_search_endpoints and reai_describe_endpoint.

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 explicitly says to use it for anything the curated tools do not cover, and advises discovering endpoints and checking schemas first. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names alternative tools (reai_search_endpoints, reai_describe_endpoint) as prerequisites, effectively explaining a safe workflow.

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