beli_get

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile, and it does declare 'read-only,' which is the most important signal here. It says nothing about auth handling, error behavior for invalid paths, rate limits, or what the response looks like — gaps that matter for a free-form HTTP passthrough.

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 short sentences, the read-only safety signal and scope are front-loaded, and nothing is wasted. The external spec pointer is the right way to handle an open-ended path space rather than enumerating endpoints inline.

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 free-form, no-annotation, no-output-schema passthrough, the definition covers the essentials an agent needs to attempt a call (read-only, path templating, spec reference) but leaves the params shape and failure modes unspecified. Adequate, not complete.

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. It adds genuinely non-obvious semantics for `path` (template substitution with {user} for the caller's user id, plus delegation to beli-api-spec for the path catalogue), but the free-form `params` object is left entirely unexplained.

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 states a concrete verb (GET) and resource (any /api/ path in the Beli spec) and frames it as an escape hatch, which distinguishes it from the specific endpoint siblings like list_my_guides and search_restaurants. It is inherently a broad passthrough tool, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Escape hatch' implies this is a fallback when no dedicated tool covers the endpoint, but the description never says so explicitly or names a preferred sibling such as search_restaurants. The pointer to beli-api-spec gives context but no when-not-to-use rule.

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