GET an LCU endpoint

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is met; the description adds real value beyond them by stating the return shape { status, body }, the client-running prerequisite, and that no write allowlist entry is needed. It stops short of describing error behavior (e.g., what happens on a 404 or malformed path), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences with zero filler: purpose/return first, then the positive alternative (lol_eval), then the mutating sibling, then path discovery and prerequisites. Front-loaded and 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the return shape, and it covers the prerequisite and the sibling routing an agent needs. For a single-parameter GET wrapper with full annotation coverage, nothing material is 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 coverage is 100% and the single path parameter is fully documented with a pattern and concrete examples in the schema. The description adds nothing about path syntax or format beyond 'any internal LCU REST API endpoint', so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (GET), resource (LCU REST API endpoint), and scope (read-only, any internal endpoint), and explicitly names what it returns ({ status, body }). It distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling lol_request and from lol_eval, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: use this instead of lol_eval for inspecting live client state, use lol_request for POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE, and use lol_endpoints/lol_schema to discover paths. It also names the prerequisite (client running) and the no-allowlist advantage. When, when-not, and alternatives are all covered.

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