Raw Redbooth GET

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety and openness are covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it is an escape hatch hitting arbitrary API paths, and it returns raw JSON rather than a normalized object. Auth requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the 'Escape hatch' framing that tells the agent what kind of tool this is, followed by the usage constraint and return type. No filler.

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 passthrough tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, when to use it, and that the response is raw JSON. It does not sketch the response shape or pagination, but since the path is arbitrary that would be difficult and largely unnecessary.

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 schema already supplies examples for both params ('/conversations', {"project_id": 123}). The description's example ('/notes' with {"project_id": 1}) reinforces the same pattern but adds no new syntax or constraint information, so the 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 ('perform a read-only GET against any Redbooth API v3 path') and frames itself as an escape hatch, which cleanly separates it from the dedicated list_/get_/create_ siblings. An agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition and exclusion: 'Use only when no dedicated tool fits,' which steers the agent toward the specialized tools first. It does not name any specific alternative, but the exclusion is unambiguous and sufficient for routing.

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