alibaba_raw_call

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it 'can invoke write APIs, so it is not read-only,' which is largely a restatement of the annotations, but adds the useful token/auth caveat for public APIs. No rate-limit, error, or side-effect detail beyond what annotations give.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core 'call any granted API by method name' leads and details follow. Efficient and readable, though the dangling example fragment after the first sentence is slightly awkward.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a 4-parameter escape-hatch tool the description is adequate on method and auth but leaves the payload and account_key semantics unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains `method` (by example) and `authorized` ('Set authorized=False for system/public APIs that need no token'), but says nothing about `params` (the request payload) or `account_key`, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Call any granted API by method name,' reinforced with a concrete dotted example (`alibaba.icbu.product.get`). The phrase 'Escape hatch for testing/verifying methods' distinguishes it from the higher-level sibling tools (product_publish, product_update, etc.), though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Escape hatch for testing/verifying methods' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate rather than the curated siblings. The authorized-flag note tells the agent when to pass `authorized=False`. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named sibling to prefer in normal flows.

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