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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that calling with only a server lists tools, and that a tool call invokes the remote tool. It does not mention error handling, return format, or side effects, but for a generic proxy, the described behavior is sufficiently transparent for typical use.

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 concise and well-organized. It begins with the core action, then explains the condition, provides an example, and ends with usage guidance. No redundant or irrelevant information is included, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 proxy tool, the description covers the essential usage scenarios: calling a tool and listing available tools. It does not address potential errors or the exact return structure, but given the absence of an output schema, this is acceptable. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool.

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?

The schema already provides clear descriptions for each parameter, including the optional nature of tool and arguments and the listing behavior. The description augments this by giving a concrete server example (slonana) and clarifying the context (tools without equivalents). While the schema covers most semantics, the description adds useful contextual meaning.

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 clearly states that this tool calls a tool on another MCP server, and explicitly distinguishes it from tools with direct equivalents in solana_rpc/evm_rpc. It provides an example (slonana's aea_list_services) and clarifies that it is for tools without a native JSON-RPC method, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: when a tool has no equivalent in the built-in RPC methods. It also instructs to call the server's tools/list first if the tool name is unknown, and explains that omitting both tool and arguments lists available tools. This effectively differentiates usage from sibling tools.

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