migros_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses input guardrails (absolute URLs and '..' segments are refused), the confirmation gate ('confirm: required for every non-GET call, catalogue keys included'), and the method defaulting rule. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and error behaviour, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a tight per-argument list with no filler. The example path is the only slightly verbose element, but it usefully illustrates the expected relative-path form.

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 seven-parameter, unannotated, mutation-capable escape hatch, the description covers purpose, guardrails, confirmation requirement, and every parameter's meaning; return values need not be described because an output schema exists. An agent has enough to invoke it safely without guessing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: all seven parameters are explained, including the mutual-exclusivity of `path` and `key` ('used instead of `path`'), the placeholder semantics of `params`, and the conditional default for `method`. This is meaning well beyond the bare JSON types in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Call any gateway route directly', with the parenthetical '(advanced escape hatch)' signalling it is the generic fallback rather than a targeted endpoint wrapper. An agent can distinguish it from catalogue-driven siblings like weekend_promotions or search_products, though it never names a specific sibling it supersedes.

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 'advanced escape hatch' framing and the instruction that `key` comes 'from migros_endpoints()' give clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It also implies two operating modes (catalogue key vs raw path) but does not explicitly say to prefer dedicated tools first or warn against using it for routine reads.

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