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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable operational traits beyond those: 'Deterministic and free,' 'calls no model,' 'costs nothing,' and 'never runs out of quota.' This is crucial context for an AI agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, expanded capabilities, operational guarantees, and direct usage guidance. It is dense yet readable, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema information.

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 tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, behavior, and what it returns (tool names and example calls). The output schema handles return-value details, so no further explanation is needed.

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 description for 'task' is already 100% covered with a clear explanation and bilingual examples. The description adds extra meaning by stating 'any language' and showcasing complex multi-step tasks (invoices to a ledger, bank statement reconciled), which helps the agent understand the breadth of accepted input.

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 a specific verb ('get back') and resource ('which tools on this server do it'), with ready-to-run example calls. It distinguishes this meta-tool from the utility siblings by explaining it maps natural-language tasks to exactly the right tool, rather than performing a specific operation.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this FIRST when you are not sure what this server offers' and contrasts with 'instead of reading the whole catalogue and guessing.' This gives both a clear when-to-use rule and an implied alternative (use the specific tool if you already know it).

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