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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing what the return contains (the full input schema plus required arguments), which is information annotations cannot convey; it omits only edge behavior such as what happens for an unknown tool name.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the capability statement front-loaded and the sequencing instruction second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return, and it does name what comes back. It is nearly complete for a trivial one-parameter read tool, missing only error/edge-case behavior for unresolvable tool names.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'name' as the exact tool name from find_tools. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: returns the full input schema of a single tool, and adds the useful detail that required arguments are included. It differentiates itself from siblings implicitly by naming find_tools and run_tool, though it never contrasts with a near-equivalent tool.

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?

Gives explicit workflow placement: 'Call it after find_tools and before run_tool.' That tells the agent exactly when in the pipeline to invoke it, but offers no when-not-to-use condition or fallback for a name it cannot resolve.

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