asc_call

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true; the description reinforces this and adds genuinely new behavior: it handles both API styles, follows/concatenates pagination, and warns that short lists may be one page where 'truncated' should not be treated as complete. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each earns its place: role, capabilities, and a pagination caveat. The phrase 'both APIs, path and query parameters' is slightly awkward/ambiguous, but the description remains compact and front-loaded.

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 read call with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the crucial behavior: read-only safety, pagination/truncation, and routing writes to asc_write. It does not describe error handling or return shapes, but the schema covers parameter semantics and the tool's generic nature makes exhaustive return documentation impractical.

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 detailed parameter documentation for query, paginate, max_pages, environment, operationId, and path_params. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Description states a clear verb and scope: 'Read from Apple' and explicitly says 'READ operations only', with writes routed to asc_write. It also names core capabilities (both APIs, path/query params, pagination), so the generic name asc_call does not leave the agent guessing.

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 gives an explicit exclusion: 'anything that changes data goes through asc_write', and it gives operational guidance about truncated pages. It does not name alternative read-only siblings like asc_pricing_get or asc_analytics_report, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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