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

Annotations already mark it read-only/open-world/non-destructive; the description adds path validation behavior, PATH_NOT_ALLOWED errors, parallel-safety guidance, and upstream cost of 1. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Although longer than average, the description is tightly organized with labeled sections and no filler. The opening one-liner, usage bullets, path constraints, safety notes, and example each add distinct value in a scannable order.

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?

The output schema exists, and annotations cover safety/open-world behavior, so the description need not explain return values. It covers when to invoke, when not to, path constraints, error behavior, rate-limit caution, and a full call example.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented with descriptions and examples. The description adds a concrete usage example and emphasizes the path allowlist, but most parameter-level meaning is already in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific framing: 'Power escape hatch: allowlisted Cito REST call with unshaped raw JSON in data.raw.' It names the exact action, target resource, and output shape, and positions itself against curated siblings as the long-tail fallback.

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 lists three use cases (long-tail paths, debugging payloads, user knows an OpenAPI path) and gives a direct exclusion: 'Do not use when: a curated tool covers the outcome.' It also names curated job categories to prefer and adds rate-limit caution.

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