API Request

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but openWorldHint is true, meaning external side effects. The description adds the authentication detail, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose rate limits, error behavior, or response format. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient and avoids fluff, but could have been enriched with a bit more context without losing conciseness.

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 API request tool with 5 parameters, the description is quite sparse. It does not explain the return value structure, authentication failure behavior, or how the 'data' parameter should be formatted for different methods. Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, more detail is needed to guide correct usage.

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 every parameter already has a clear description. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as how parameters interact or typical usage patterns. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: making an authenticated request to a specific API (DataForSEO). The verb 'make' and the resource 'authenticated request' are specific and unambiguous. Sibling tools are all documentation-related, so this tool is clearly distinguished as the API request 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings are documentation tools, the description does not explicitly state that this is the only tool for API requests or mention any conditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from context.

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