call_api

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: dropped credential/Host/proxy/framing headers surfaced via ignored_headers, no redirect following with absolute location returned, body truncated at 60k chars, errors shaped as {error}, and a PII safety warning. This is unusually rich 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?

Dense but essentially waste-free; the purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence covers a distinct behavior (query semantics, methods, headers, return shape, errors, PII). The one-line-per-topic layout is readable, though the parenthetical detail is heavy.

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 six-parameter, zero-schema-documentation, no-annotation passthrough tool, this covers everything an agent needs: input semantics for path/query/method/body/headers, safety caveats, redirect and truncation behavior, and error shape. Even with an output schema present, the return description adds useful parsing/truncation detail.

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 compensate and does: it defines what path is relative to, how query interacts with the path query string and how list values repeat keys, enumerates the allowed method values, restricts body to POST/PUT/PATCH, and explains header filtering. Only api_id is left to inference from its name.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Call an endpoint of a catalog API') plus a key behavioral promise (base URL and credentials resolved for you). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_apis, describe_api and credentials_status, which enumerate or introspect rather than execute requests.

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 conditional usage rules: body only with POST/PUT/PATCH, query overriding path query-string keys, and an explicit when-not for PII-flagged entries ('call them only when the user asked'). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative for any scenario, so it stops short of the 5.

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