rest_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully notes that GET is allowed by default and writes/deletes require explicit raw permission flags, but it does not mention possible side effects, error behavior, request limits, or what happens when the raw API is disabled or permissions are missing.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the permission guidance earns its place, making this an appropriately sized and well-structured definition.

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?

This is a powerful arbitrary-endpoint tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, yet the description provides no examples, no return/error behavior, and no explanation of the ambiguous parameters. The existing text is a starting point but is far from complete guidance for safe and correct invocation.

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 only 20%, with only 'path' described in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. The semantics of 'profile', 'body', and 'query' remain unexplained, and 'profile' in particular is ambiguous despite being a required context for some API calls.

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 identifies the tool as a 'raw REST escape hatch', which signals a generic HTTP request capability and distinguishes it from the many specialized siblings. However, it never explicitly states the operation as 'make an arbitrary Survey Solutions API request', so some inference from the name and schema is required.

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 phrase 'escape hatch' implies this tool is for cases not covered by dedicated tools, but there is no explicit 'use this only when no specialized tool exists' guidance. It also does not explain when GET vs write methods should be used beyond permission hints, leaving the agent to infer route selection.

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