es_request

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the return shape ({status, body}), the error format for 4xx/5xx ('HTTP <status> <type>: <reason>' plus trimmed body), the requirement for string bodies with NDJSON, and the readonly connection restrictions. It omits details like timeout behavior or retries, but covers the essentials.

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 dense and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then details return and error formats, and finally lists readonly restrictions. Every sentence provides useful information with no filler, though it could be slightly more structured for faster scanning.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description compensates by explaining the return value and error format. It also covers the readonly whitelist, which is critical for safe invocation. The main gap is the undocumented `params` parameter, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds value for the `body` parameter by explaining the string requirement for NDJSON. However, the `params` parameter is completely undocumented in both description and schema, and `connection` is only briefly referenced. The description adds meaningful context for one parameter but leaves significant gaps.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generic Elasticsearch REST passthrough: any method, any path.' It distinguishes itself from specialized siblings like `es_search` and `es_get_mapping` by being a generic escape hatch, though it doesn't explicitly recommend when to choose this over the specialized tools.

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 implies usage through examples (e.g., string body for NDJSON) and constraints (readonly connections allow only reads), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized sibling tools like `es_search` or `es_get_mapping`. The agent must infer that this is the fallback option.

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