Raw Wordstat API call

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

The description states that body is sent as JSON and method defaults to POST, implying potential write operations. However, the annotations include readOnlyHint: true, which directly contradicts this. The description does not disclose side effects or authentication requirements beyond folderId injection.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and key parameter behavior. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the escape hatch concept.

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?

The description covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately but does not explain the return value format, error handling, or the fact that it can be used for both GET and POST. Given no output schema and the tool's flexible nature, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds useful context: body is JSON, folderId is injected automatically, method defaults to POST. This adds value but is not extensive beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool as an escape hatch for endpoints without dedicated tools, with an example path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (dynamics, list_regions, etc.) by stating it is for paths without a dedicated tool.

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 states 'for endpoints without a dedicated tool,' providing context on when to use it. It implicitly advises against using it when a dedicated tool exists, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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