faz_raw_get

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

The description adds several behavioral constraints beyond annotations: credentials/session/request ID/method/host cannot be overridden, results have no field-level redaction, response size varies by endpoint, and catalog membership is not enforced. This complements the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint annotations without contradiction.

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 a compact paragraph of five sentences, each delivering actionable information without redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides necessary cautions and usage steps.

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 raw GET tool with flexible params and an output schema, the description covers the prerequisite workflow, security constraints, override limitations, and result characteristics. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that params can contain members such as url (while some fields cannot be overridden), and advising to consult the linked source page for parameter placement. It gives meaningful context, though the exact meaning of 'path' and 'jsonrpc_version' is left implicit.

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 this tool calls an appliance-local read endpoint not covered by a high-level tool, using a specific verb ('Call') and resource ('appliance-local read endpoint'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as a low-level fallback and instructing to search docs first.

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 directs to use faz_search_api_docs first to find the path and source page for parameter placement, and advises to use only trusted endpoints with documented selectors. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly says not to use it when a high-level tool exists.

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