Describe one API operation

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a describe/read tool. Since there is no output schema, the description usefully discloses what the response contains (parameters, request-body schema, response shape), which is behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and finished with the accepted input forms. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return content well and fully documents the single input's accepted forms. Minor gap: it doesn't mention error behavior for invalid operationIds/paths, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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% with a single parameter whose description already spells out the operationId or "METHOD /path" format, so the description largely restates the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: returns full detail for a single API operation, enumerating path/query parameters, request-body schema, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling omada_search_api by naming it as the source of the operationId.

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?

Gives clear context: use it after omada_search_api, and tells the agent the accepted input forms (operationId or "METHOD /path"). It does not state when NOT to use it or contrast with omada_call, but the workflow placement is unambiguous.

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