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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it justifies readOnlyHint=false (inner tools may create a render, a stored file or a ledger entry) and destructiveHint=false (no catalog tool deletes or overwrites), and adds that pricing and payment apply verbatim, that errors propagate from the inner tool, and that unknown names fail with a pointer to tool_catalog. That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry for an aggregator whose safety profile is a catalog-wide worst case.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose before the hint rationale, and every sentence carries information. It runs dense — the second sentence packs annotations, rationale, prerequisites and the self-call exclusion — which trades a little readability for completeness, but there is no filler to cut.

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 pass-through dispatcher with two params, full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to resolve the inner tool, how args are forwarded, what safety posture to assume and why, and how failures behave. No gap remains that would cause a misinvocation.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add real meaning — args pass through unchanged to the inner tool's inputSchema, and name must be an exact catalog name rather than 'use_tool' — but it is confirming and constraining what the schema says rather than introducing new parameter behavior.

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 — runs any catalog tool that is missing from tools/list — and frames it as exactly equivalent to a direct call, with args, price, payment, result and errors passing through verbatim. This clearly separates it from the sibling tool_catalog (discovery) and from every concrete tool (no wrapper needed).

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 an explicit precondition (the tool is missing from your tools/list), a required preceding step (fetch name, schema and annotations via tool_catalog(tool='<name>')), an explicit exclusion (it cannot call itself), and the failure mode (missing or unknown name errors pointing to tool_catalog). Nothing about when to reach for this versus the alternatives is left to inference.

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