Advanced: any Hydromancer API request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety baseline is set. The description adds genuinely useful domain context beyond that: 'this server never places orders,' which directly addresses the main fear an agent has when hand-crafting an arbitrary request body to a trading API. It stops short of noting error behavior or that response shape varies per endpoint.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the escape-hatch purpose, then the call convention, then the safety guarantee. The long doc URL earns its place as the only way to enumerate valid endpoints.

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 an open-world raw proxy with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs to act: the purpose boundary, the required body key, a doc link, and the read-only guarantee. A brief note that the response shape is determined by the requested 'type' would close the last gap.

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 100% and the schema already shows example bodies and the limit bounds. The description adds value the schema does not state outright — that the body must include a 'type' key — and points to the authoritative endpoint list. It does not explain how 'limit' interacts with specific endpoints, but the schema handles the mechanics.

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 ('send any Hydromancer /info request directly') plus the exact scope boundary: endpoints the other tools do not cover. The named examples (vaultSummaries, historicalOrders, spotMeta, etc.) make it unmistakable against the 18 named siblings, which all target specific resources.

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 defines when to use it (endpoints not covered by other tools) and, by implication, when not to — an agent should reach for the dedicated sibling first. The doc URL gives the agent a way to resolve the remaining 'which endpoints exist' question.

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