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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds that it "never changes anything" and, more usefully, discloses the failure mode: unknown names, write tools, and invalid arguments return an error saying what to fix. It stops short of describing what a successful call returns or whether underlying tool output is passed through verbatim.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the prerequisite workflow and error behavior. No filler or hedging; every sentence carries distinct information.

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 nested-argument dispatcher with no output schema, the description covers invocation, prerequisites, and failure modes well. The remaining gap is that it never says what a successful call returns (presumably the wrapped tool's result), which an agent would have to infer.

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% and the schema already says name comes from search_tools and args follow the shape describe_tools shows, so the description mostly restates that. The one added nuance is that args may be omitted when the target takes none, which the schema only implies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run a Shiko tool marked [read]") and gives a concrete example (read_map), so an agent immediately knows this is the dispatcher for read-only tools. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from run_write by naming [write] tools as an error case.

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 prescribes the workflow: find the name with search_tools and the arguments with describe_tools first, then invoke. It also states the exclusion condition (a [write] tool is rejected), which is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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