call_operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data-changing operations are refused, which is a behavioral constraint beyond the annotations. It doesn't detail error handling or response format, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clear exclusion. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 read-only API caller with annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It lacks details on how to construct body/query/path_params and what the response looks like, but the reference to search_operations and the refusal of mutating operations give enough context for an agent to proceed. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the read-only nature.

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 compensate. It mentions 'by id' and references search_operations, implying the operation parameter is an id, but it doesn't explain market, body, query, or path_params. The description adds some context for the operation parameter but leaves the other parameters to be inferred from their names and schema types.

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 tool calls a read-only operation from Amazon's specs by id, and explicitly distinguishes it from data-changing operations. It also references search_operations as the way to find operations, which helps an agent understand the tool's role.

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 says when to use this tool (for read-only operations) and when not to use it (operations that change data are refused; use a plan tool instead). This is strong guidance that prevents misuse.

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