call_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication behavior (OMNI_KEY env var, no upstream key needed) and suggests a workflow. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or response format, which would be helpful for a proxy tool.

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 three sentences with no redundancy: purpose, authentication, and prerequisite are all covered concisely. Each sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, authentication, and a necessary prerequisite. It could hint at the response format but is otherwise 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters documented. The description adds context about using slug and operation but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 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 it calls any published API via proxy, using the Omni key for authentication. It distinguishes from siblings like get_api (which discovers endpoints) by specifying it is the tool to execute the actual API call.

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 description advises using get_api first to learn endpoints and parameters, which is a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the context signals (sibling tools) suggest other tools are for discovery or streaming.

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