Call any Dolphin{anty} API endpoint

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

The description discloses that the call is 'unvalidated' and lacks the safety of typed tools, adding behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true). It also explains query serialization style and target-specific URL hosts, which are useful non-obvious behaviors. 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 well-structured with a purpose statement, a bullet list for target selection, and a concise note on query style. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important guidance is front-loaded.

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 tool, it covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, how to choose targets, and query serialization behavior. It does not explicitly mention return format or error handling, but given no output schema and the raw call nature, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 low (40%), but the description compensates by explaining the critical `target` parameter (host mapping) and clarifying `query` array joining with commas. These details add meaning beyond the schema's enum and object definitions, though body and path remain generic.

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 is a 'raw, unvalidated call to the Dolphin{anty} API' and contrasts with dedicated typed tools, making its purpose and distinctiveness from siblings unambiguous. The specific verb 'call' plus the resource 'API' defines the action precisely.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use this only when no dedicated tool fits' and explains that typed tools carry validation and API-specific guidance. It also provides a clear mapping of target values to hosts, so an agent knows exactly when and how to select the correct endpoint.

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