v2_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond annotations — 'Returns errorCode triage on failure' — but does not explain what that triage contains, how errors are shaped, or whether paging or auth quirks exist.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the routing rule and a failure note. There is no filler, and every sentence adds value.

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 escape-hatch GET tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, fallback usage, and a failure-return hint. However, with 0% schema coverage and a nested query object, it omits enough parameter detail that an agent may need to inspect the schema or experiment to invoke it correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'path' is relative to /api/v2, which is useful, but it says nothing about the nested 'query' object's structure, expected keys, or encoding, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb (GET) and resource scope (any v2 path relative to /api/v2), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the many typed siblings by saying it is for 'anything the typed tools do not cover.' An agent can immediately tell this is a generic fallback GET tool.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'Use for anything the typed tools do not cover.' This directly names the alternative (typed tools) and the condition that selects this tool over them, leaving nothing to inference.

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