Dispatch read operation

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: closed-contract validation with a typed CONFIG_ERROR naming valid fields before any request, enforcement ordering (effect checks precede SDK validation and HTTP), no dry run for reads, preview/confirm explicitly not counting as human consent with the approval burden placed on the host, and default masking of credentials and asset custom fields. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the body is a dense multi-clause block that mixes issue references ('issues #70/#72') and repeated closed-contract statements that also live in the schema. Several clauses could be trimmed without losing agent-relevant information.

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 90-plus-operation dispatcher with an output schema available, the description covers the contract source, validation/error behavior, masking defaults, and approval semantics. It omits only secondary concerns such as pagination or rate limits, which is acceptable given per-operation schemas and a defined output schema.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the registry-key semantics of 'operation'. The description largely restates the closed-contract behavior already present in the input schema's description, adding only the enforcement-point detail, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Execute only read operations by canonical registry key,' which tells an agent this is a generic dispatcher over a fixed operation enum rather than a domain-specific tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like hudu_search or hudu_resolve_any, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It points the agent at the served input schema and hudu_describe_operation as the zero-wire-cost way to obtain the per-operation field contract, which is useful routing. However, it never states when to pick this dispatcher over the concrete siblings (hudu_get_company_context, hudu_search, hudu_resolve_any), leaving the choice implied.

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