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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value beyond those by stating writes are rejected and that the tool may reach systems outside PaperOffice, which is important behavioral context. No contradiction with 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 description is two short sentences, front-loads the most critical information (READ-ONLY, returns data, changes nothing), and every clause earns its place: write rejection, alternate tool, and external-reach warning.

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?

Annotations and output schema cover the safety profile and return shape, so the description does not need to repeat those. It covers read-only behavior, write rejection, and external reach. It could be more complete by pointing to sibling tools like po_mcp_tools_search or po_mcp_tools_schema for discovering valid tool_ids, but it is mostly sufficient.

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 clarifies tool_id as the read-only inner tool to execute, but the 'arguments' object is left entirely to inference; an agent is not told that arguments are passed through to the inner tool or how they should be shaped. This is a meaningful gap for a proxy tool.

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 uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (read-only inner tool_id), and clearly states it returns data and changes nothing. It also distinguishes itself from the write sibling by saying writes are rejected and to use call_write.

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 states when the tool is appropriate: executing a read-only inner tool. It also gives a clear exclusion and alternative: 'Writes are rejected; use call_write,' which lets an agent route correctly without opening the sibling schema.

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