Raw ESI request

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint=true, so the description must carry nearly the full burden, and it does: it discloses that auth, compatibility date, caching and pagination are handled automatically, that id fields gain *_name siblings, and that non-GET methods mutate game state. It stops short of covering failure modes an agent would want here — ESI error-limit/backoff behavior, HTTP error surfacing, or what happens on a 404 route — which keeps it off 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 sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, placeholder substitution, handled plumbing, mutation warning), with the core purpose front-loaded and the safety warning last where it is most likely to be read before acting. Dense but not padded.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-object, open-world proxy tool with no output schema, the description covers the cross-cutting behaviors an agent cannot infer (auth injection, pagination, name enrichment, placeholder resolution, mutation risk). Nothing essential for a correct first call is left to guesswork.

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 75%, so most params are self-documented, but the description still adds real meaning the schema cannot: the {character_id}/{corporation_id}/{alliance_id} placeholders are auto-filled from the selected character, and authentication/pagination/name-resolution are applied automatically rather than per-call. It does not state the default for `method`, leaving the GET-vs-omitted behavior implicit.

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 names a specific capability — an arbitrary ESI route proxy — and explicitly frames it as an escape hatch for routes 'not covered by a dedicated tool,' which cleanly separates it from the many domain-specific siblings (assets, wallet, mail_list, etc.). An agent can decide between esi_request and any specialized tool without opening a 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?

It states exactly when to reach for this tool (uncovered ESI routes), points to the authoritative route catalog via URL, and gives a hard guardrail for the risky case: 'Non-GET methods change game state: confirm with the user first.' That is explicit when-to-use plus an explicit caution, which is the ceiling for this dimension.

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