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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the nested return shape, the presence/absence of `tools` based on access level, the meaning of `delegation` as the bounded summary, and the error conditions for unknown or invisible ids. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but for a single-resource read with annotations covering safety, this is strong.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return shape, then access semantics, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, though it is long and somewhat heavy with nested parentheticals. It is structured well enough that an agent can extract the key facts quickly, but the length pushes it just below a 5.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return shape, the conditional presence of `tools`, the meaning of `delegation`, the error conditions, the visibility rules, and the exact situations in which to call this tool versus siblings. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the schema already documents the `id` parameter well, including the distinction between stored ids (`tbx_…`) and dynamic ids (`global:usr_…`, `connection:conn_…`). The description adds value by explaining how the id relates to visibility and by warning that tool names are provider-specific and must not be guessed, which is directly relevant to using the parameter correctly. It doesn't add syntax details beyond the schema, but the schema is already rich.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Resolve one toolbox') and immediately distinguishes the tool's scope: it returns the toolbox record plus the resolved, runnable surface when access reaches 'use'. It also names sibling tools (toolbox.execute, toolbox.set_entries) and clarifies what this tool is not, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call this before toolbox.execute to get the exact tool_name and argument schema, and before toolbox.set_entries because that replaces entries wholesale. It also states the visibility rules and explicitly says there is no visibility parameter, which prevents an agent from trying to widen scope.

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