Call FatSecret Method (long tail)

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 valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is an 'allowlisted escape hatch' and that mutating methods are rejected, implying a guardrail. This enhances transparency without redundancy.

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 every word earns its place. The exclusions and alternative guidance are packed efficiently without 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?

Given the tool is an escape hatch with generic parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for selection (when to use) but incomplete for invocation. It fails to explain parameter semantics, expected return value, or error behavior. The strong annotations cover safety, but the missing parameter guidance is a significant gap for a tool meant to call arbitrary methods.

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%, and the description provides no parameter details. The schema only lists methodId (string) and params (object), but does not explain what methodId should be (e.g., FatSecret API method name), how params should map to query parameters, or any format/constraints. The description's mention of 'GET methods' gives a minor hint, but it is far from sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke this escape hatch.

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's purpose: an 'escape hatch' for read-only (GET) FatSecret methods not covered by a dedicated tool. It uses a specific verb ('call'), specifies the resource (FatSecret methods), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it covers methods 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for read-only GET methods not covered by a dedicated tool. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Mutating methods are rejected,' and directs users to the 'prepare/commit tools instead.' This is strong alternative guidance.

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