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

Although annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable non-obvious behavioral context: 'Deterministic and free: it calls no model, costs nothing, and never runs out of quota.' This informs the agent about cost, reliability, and independence from model quotas, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: the core function, the multi-step recipe capability, and operational characteristics (free/deterministic). It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, has annotations covering safety, and an output schema. The description provides complete context: what it does, when to use it, additional output capabilities, and cost/reliability characteristics. Nothing essential is missing.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description and examples, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by emphasizing 'plain language (any language)', which clarifies that the parameter accepts natural language across languages, adding semantics not fully captured in the schema.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Describe a task in plain language... and get back exactly which tools on this server do it, with ready-to-run example calls.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling utility tools, which perform specific operations rather than tool discovery.

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 explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you are not sure what this server offers', providing clear context for when to use. It also contrasts with the alternative of 'reading the whole catalogue and guessing'. However, it does not explicitly state whhen not to use it (e.g., when you already know the exact tool), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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