fusion_soap_describe

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the snapshotted nature of the service and the warning that parameter order matters and can cause silent, incorrect calls. This is valuable behavioral disclosure.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clean Args section. The positional-order warning is not padding; it is high-value guidance directly relevant to calling Fusion operations safely.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to explain return values or side effects. Both input parameters are documented and the crucial positional-order caveat is included. The only real gap is explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 documents both parameters: service with a concrete path example and operation as optional. This adds real value beyond the schema, though it could be slightly richer about operation name format.

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 identifies the tool as one that returns operations of a snapshotted SOAP service, optionally detailing a single operation. This makes the resource and action clear, and distinguishes it from call/list tools in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling it is not, so it does not fully earn 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?

The usage context is implied through the positional-parameter warning: an agent should inspect operation parameter order before making calls. However, the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus fusion_soap_call or fusion_soap_list_services, and it offers no exclusion criteria.

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