call_enrichr

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses method selection (GET for certain paths), body handling for POST vs GET, and the three possible return shapes. It does not cover rate limits, authentication, or side effects, but for a generic passthrough this is meaningful disclosure beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with an opening purpose statement, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and concrete examples are provided without padding.

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 generic 2-parameter passthrough with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, method behavior, and return variants, and even flags that routes are billed. It could add a note on error handling or endpoint validity, but it is largely complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 does: 'path' is explained with concrete examples and 'body' is defined as the JSON object expected by the REST API, with an example and the note that it is ignored for GET. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema, though it cannot enumerate every possible endpoint body.

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 first sentence states a clear verb ('Call'), a specific resource ('billed catalog route or account endpoint'), and the mechanism ('by path'). The phrase 'Closes MCP coverage gaps without a dedicated wrapper' distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that wrap specific endpoints.

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 positions this as the fallback for endpoints without a dedicated wrapper, which is a clear when-to-use rule. It adds routing detail that GET is automatic for /v1/catalog and /v1/account/usage|options, and that body is ignored for GET, though it does not fully enumerate when to prefer specific sibling tools.

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