Raw bexio API request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions that requests are authenticated but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., mutations via POST/PUT/DELETE), rate limits, error handling, or response format. Given the tool can perform destructive operations, more transparency is needed.

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 only two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance and reference. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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?

Given it is a raw API request tool, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and reference. It could mention that responses are raw JSON and that caution is needed for mutation methods, but these are somewhat implied. The absence of an output schema means the description could be more explicit about return value format.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond what the schema already provides (method, path, body, query are all documented in the schema). The description gives example paths but does not add meaning to the parameters themselves.

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?

Clearly states the tool makes arbitrary authenticated requests to the bexio API for endpoints not covered by dedicated tools, with specific path examples like /3.0/banking/accounts, /2.0/user. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools dedicated to specific resources.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use for endpoints not covered by a dedicated tool, and provides a reference to the full API documentation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when a dedicated tool exists), though this is implied.

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