owlvin_call

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: billing, rate limiting, and auth are handled automatically; cost is deducted from credit balance; and it returns the service response. This covers operational, financial, and output aspects well for a gateway 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second covers behavioral aspects, the third gives usage guidance, and the rest detail parameters and returns. There's no wasted text, and it's well-structured with clear sections.

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 the complexity of a universal API gateway with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the tool's role, behavioral traits, usage flow, parameter meanings, and return behavior. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately covers other aspects.

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. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter: service as 'Service slug (e.g., "drumsplit")', operation as 'Operation name (e.g., "full", "drumbus")', and input_data as 'JSON string with operation-specific parameters.' This clarifies usage beyond the bare schema, but doesn't provide exhaustive details like format constraints or examples for all possible values.

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 as 'Call any service on the Owlvin platform' and identifies it as 'the universal API gateway,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like owlvin_aeo_optimize or owlvin_aeo_scan, which appear to be more specialized operations.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Use owlvin_services first to see available services and operations.' This gives explicit guidance on prerequisites. It doesn't specify when not to use this tool or name alternatives beyond owlvin_services, but the context is well-defined.

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