general_api_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about permissions/auth, whether destructive methods (DELETE/PUT) are permitted, side effects on indices or data, error/response behavior, or rate limits — significant omissions for an unrestricted pass-through tool capable of writes and deletes.

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 tight sentences, zero padding, and the purpose plus its differentiator are front-loaded. Nothing here is redundant or misplaced.

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?

This is a high-blast-radius, high-complexity catch-all with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should warn about write/delete risk, auth, and expected responses. It omits all of that, leaving the agent under-informed about the consequences of an arbitrary request.

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 100%, so method, path, body, params, and cluster are all documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, path-format, or cluster-selection detail beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete action (perform an HTTP API request) and scopes it to Elasticsearch/OpenSearch APIs lacking a dedicated tool. The second sentence positively differentiates it from the many siblings (create_index, search_documents, etc.), so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Explicitly says when to use it: any API with no dedicated tool. That implicitly and clearly defines when NOT to use it — prefer the named siblings. This is exactly the fallback routing guidance an agent needs.

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