skool_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that cookies and User-Agent are injected automatically, which is useful. However, it does not warn that arbitrary requests can be destructive (POST/PUT/DELETE) or mention response format, rate limits, or error handling. 'Arbitrary' implies power, but the description stops short of fully explaining the behavioral implications.

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 action, and each sentence adds value: first states what and where, second gives use cases and a technical detail. No wasted words.

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 arbitrary request tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the core capability and key injected behavior, but lacks context on expected response format, side effects of non-GET methods, and safety caveats. The schema covers parameters, so the main gap is behavioral completeness for a flexible tool.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all 4 parameters (url, body, method, headers), covering 100% of schema properties. The description adds context about automatic cookies/User-Agent injection, which relates to headers, but does not add per-parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool makes arbitrary authenticated HTTP requests to any Skool URL, which is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from the sibling tools that target specific endpoints (posts, members, courses). It also states its intended use cases: API discovery and debugging.

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 mentions it is 'Useful for API discovery and debugging', which gives clear context for when to use this tool over the specialized sibling tools. It doesn't explicitly exclude use for other purposes or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would understand this is a low-level fallback tool.

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