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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds non-redundant behavioral context: deterministic, calls no model, costs nothing, never runs out of quota. It also discloses the return includes example calls and multi-step recipes.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence adding meaningful context. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage, return types, and operational guarantees without padding.

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 single-parameter discovery tool with a rich output schema, the description fully covers behavior, usage context, and return value expectations. It even explains how to handle multi-step chains, making it complete for an agent selecting this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the task parameter is clearly described. The description adds value by explaining the parameter accepts plain language in any language and provides concrete examples (English and Chinese), going beyond the schema's basic definition.

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 the tool's purpose: given a plain-language task, it returns the exact server tools that perform it with example calls. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools (specific converters/PDF utilities) by positioning itself as the meta-tool for 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 tells the agent to 'Call this FIRST when you are not sure what this server offers,' and contrasts it with the alternative of 'reading the whole catalogue and guessing.' It also mentions multi-step recipe handling, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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