raw_request

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

The description discloses that it performs same-origin fetch with cookies and adds CSRF for hintsui/DNA APIs, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces the 'escape hatch' nature. It doesn't detail failure modes or rate limits, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key purpose ('Escape hatch'), then provides the mechanism, usage condition, example, and pointer to docs. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-level escape hatch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, how it authenticates, and where to find more info. It could mention response format or error handling, but the pointer to docs/endpoints.md mitigates that gap.

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 explains the 'path' parameter with an example and mentions 'dnaContext' implicitly via 'CSRF added for hintsui/DNA APIs'. However, it doesn't explain 'method' or 'jsonBody' beyond what the schema provides. The description adds some meaning but not full compensation for the 0% coverage.

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 this as an escape hatch for performing arbitrary ancestry.com requests through the logged-in browser, with a concrete example path. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by saying 'Only when no action above fits.'

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 when to use this tool: only when no other action fits. It also provides a concrete example and points to docs/endpoints.md for known endpoints, giving clear guidance on how to use it.

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