Raw API GET

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description adds two things annotations do not: the return format (JSON response) despite no output schema, and the host-restriction security boundary. The leading 'Read-only' is redundant with the annotations but harmless.

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 tight sentences with the safety profile front-loaded ('Read-only') and no filler. Every clause conveys something actionable: operation, return type, example, and boundary.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the operation, return format, and host boundary. The only meaningful omission is routing guidance against the typed siblings.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents 'API path with optional query' with the same example path. The description adds no syntax, encoding, or query-format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a GET request to a Mercado Livre API path and return the JSON response') with a concrete path example. It is clearly the generic/raw escape hatch versus the typed siblings like ml_get_item, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this generic tool versus the nine dedicated siblings (ml_get_item, ml_list_orders, etc.). 'Only paths on the API host are allowed' is a scope constraint, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer that this is a fallback for endpoints without a typed tool.

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