vk_get_raw

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the burden is lower. The description adds concrete behavioral details: only GET/HEAD/OPTIONS, host override behavior, body rarity on reads, and the success/error response envelope. It does not detail auth failures or rate limits, but those are not critical given the output schema and annotation context.

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 information-dense but well organized: purpose first, usage routing second, then a compact parameter list followed by return format. Every line serves a purpose and nothing is redundant.

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 raw HTTP read tool, this covers all necessary call decisions: target API, path construction, allowed methods, host override, query/body usage, and return shape. Combined with annotations and the provided output schema, the agent has what it needs to invoke 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 fully compensate. It does: path must begin with '/', method defaults to GET and must be safe, host is an override, query is for query-string parameters, and body is a rare JSON request body on reads. This adds real meaning far beyond the bare schema titles.

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?

Description states a specific verb/resource/scope: 'Read ANY endpoint by path, including ones missing from the catalog.' It also distinguishes itself from raw write/delete siblings by explicitly naming vk_write_raw and vk_delete_raw. This makes the tool's purpose 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?

The description explicitly says to use this for safe read-only operations and gives alternatives for changes ('To change data use vk_write_raw, to delete use vk_delete_raw'). The phrase 'including ones missing from the catalog' also clarifies when this raw escape hatch is appropriate.

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