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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important trait — the result and any error are identical to a direct call — but says nothing about whether the invoked operation may be destructive, whether it needs specific permissions, or whether it is idempotent, all of which matter for a generic 'run anything' tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and each subsequent sentence adding distinct value: parameter sourcing, then return/error equivalence. No filler.

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 or annotations and a low-coverage schema, the description supplies the missing sourcing guidance and return behavior, and defers detail to describe_operations. The notable gap is the absence of any warning that dispatched operations may mutate data.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that `name` is an operation name sourced from find_operations and that `arguments` is the object described by describe_operations, including the null/omitted case. It does not give a concrete format example, but the origin and structure of both parameters are covered.

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 any operation by name', and clarifies scope by noting it covers both listed and unlisted operations. It distinguishes itself from siblings by tying directly into the find_operations/describe_operations workflow, though the dispatcher framing could be sharper.

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 clear context for use: name comes from find_operations, arguments from describe_operations, and there is an explicit rule to omit arguments for zero-arg operations. It stops short of an exclusion rule (e.g. when to call a listed sibling tool directly instead of routing through this dispatcher).

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