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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that only the plain-language task is required ('no other fields are needed'), that it selects a provider/tool for the agent to execute rather than executing itself, and that results should be reported via atl_outcome. This gives a clear behavioral picture, though it doesn't describe return format or failure modes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The long list of trigger conditions is exhaustive but still readable and earns its place; not overly wordy.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, what input to pass, and the after-action (atl_outcome). It does not detail return values or optional parameter usage, but the schema covers the latter and the workflow is clear.

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% (all 8 parameters documented). Per the rubric, baseline is 3. The description adds the key note that 'no other fields are needed' and the task suffices, but does not add detail beyond the schema for the optional parameters. This matches the baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the right tool, MCP server, or provider to execute a task.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and clear resource types, and distinguishes from sibling atl_outcome by directing reporting after execution.

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 an extensive list of 'Call this when' triggers (need a tool, provider, MCP server, unsure, multiple options, failure, fallback/routing). It also clarifies what to do after: 'After you execute the selected provider/tool, report the real result with atl_outcome,' which guides alternative usage.

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