notory_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key security requirement ('Writes require a token with the 'write' scope'), which adds value. However, it does not mention response format, error handling, rate limits, or other runtime behaviors, leaving significant gaps.

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 main action, and contains no redundant or filler text. Every sentence adds essential information: what it does, the auth requirement, and the prerequisite workflow.

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 raw API request tool, the description covers the core workflow: call any endpoint, find the path/payload via list_endpoints, and know that writes need a special token. It does not cover response handling or error cases, but given the generic nature and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema already describes method, path, body, and query. The description adds that payload shape is found via list_endpoints and that writes require a write-scoped token, which gives context but does not deeply explain each parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description provides some compensation but not enough for a higher score.

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 it can 'Call any Notory endpoint with any HTTP method', listing all supported methods. This is a specific verb+resource combination, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by being a generic raw API caller rather than a specialized helper.

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 explicit guidance to 'Use notory_list_endpoints first to find the right path and payload shape', which is a clear prerequisite for correct usage. It also implies this tool is for endpoints not covered by the dedicated sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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