Call cataloged Lucky API

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: arbitrary URLs are rejected and sensitive mutations are blocked in code, while all other Lucky functions remain callable. This helps set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful constraint information. No fluff or repetition.

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 generic, destructive API-calling tool with no output schema and zero parameter description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not mention how to discover valid catalog entries, how to interpret responseType, or when to use companion tools like lucky_api_catalog or lucky_api_describe. This leaves significant ambiguity for 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the meaning of body, query, responseType, or how path relates to the catalog. It only hints that paths are catalog endpoints, not arbitrary URLs. An agent still lacks enough semantic detail to confidently construct valid 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?

Description states a clear verb+resource: 'Call any API present in the versioned catalog,' and explicitly rules out arbitrary URLs. This distinguishes it from the many specialized sibling tools, making its generic catalog-calling role evident.

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 gives clear context: use this tool for cataloged Lucky API endpoints, not arbitrary URLs, and notes that account/password/OpenToken mutations are blocked. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the exclusion of arbitrary URLs and the mention of all other functions being available imply when this generic tool should be used.

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