api_request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it may not be read-only. The description adds the 'raw API request' concept and a link to the API reference, but does not elaborate on potential side effects, rate limits, or return format variability. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a link and example without excess. Every element earns its place; it is concise, structured, and easy to scan.

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 it is a generic raw-request tool with no output schema, the description adequately sets expectations by indicating it covers endpoints not in sibling tools, providing the API reference for details, and giving an example. It could mention that return values vary by endpoint, but the link covers that. Overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 all parameters are individually described in the input schema. The description adds an example (endpoint="/v2/blocks/last", method="GET") which helps illustrate usage, but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Thus it adds minimal incremental value.

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 states the verb ('Make a raw API request') and the resource ('any Counterparty REST endpoint'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the other tools by saying 'not covered by the other tools'. This makes its purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'any Counterparty REST endpoint not covered by the other tools'. It also provides a full API reference link and a concrete example, giving clear context for when this fallback tool is appropriate.

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