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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description adds useful context that behavior and side effects are determined by the invoked tool, not by call_tool itself. It also discloses that unlisted tools can be invoked, though it does not elaborate on auth, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the required discovery workflow. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition.

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 complex open-world meta-tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key workflow and delegated behavior. It is mostly complete, though it could say more about invalid tool names or validation errors.

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 name and arguments. The description adds meaningful nuance by saying the name may refer to a tool this connection does not list, which is not captured by 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it runs any Last Price tool by name, including tools not listed by the connection. It also clearly distinguishes this executor from discovery via search_tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use search_tools first to find the tool name and arguments, which is strong usage guidance. It does not state when not to use this tool or name other alternatives beyond search_tools.

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