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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful operational context: an ack from agentmart_tools is required and nothing runs without it. It also discloses blocklist semantics at /mcp/core, which goes beyond the structured 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 purpose is front-loaded, but the second half is a dense, semicolon-heavy sentence about /mcp/core and block semantics that is difficult to parse. The information is useful, but the structure makes it harder to extract quickly.

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 dispatcher tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical gating requirement (ack) and the main routing alternatives. It stops short of stating what the tool returns or how the result mirrors the invoked tool's output, but otherwise gives enough to call 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 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the caller must supply the tool, its ack, and arguments, but it does not add syntax or usage detail beyond what the schema provides, and it omits passport_token entirely.

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 states a specific verb and resource: running one read-only AgentMart tool that is not in the caller's list. It distinguishes itself from in-list tools by telling the agent to call those directly, and it implicitly contrasts with agentmart_write, though the contrast is not as crisp as it could be.

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 clearly says to use this only for tools not in your list and to call in-list tools such as buy directly. It also explains the /mcp/core blocking behavior and points to /mcp as an alternative, giving concrete when-to-use context without spelling out every exclusion.

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