Home cost planners, proofreading and QR codes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds nothing to qualify them. For a dispatcher that executes arbitrary target tools, it never warns that the executed tool's effects govern — idempotency and read-only status depend on the callee, not on this wrapper — which is exactly the context an agent needs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; the two capabilities are introduced in a sensible order. It is terse rather than bloated, though the brevity contributes to the gaps scored elsewhere.

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 high-complexity meta-tool with a nested object parameter, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description omits how to resolve a valid tool name, how field selection interacts with the response, and how failures of the underlying tool surface. What is present is accurate but far short of what the agent needs.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It gestures at 'arguments' and 'select output fields', roughly mapping to two of three params, but gives no format for name (qualified tool name?), no syntax for the fields list, and no statement that arguments must conform to the target tool's schema — especially important given the nested object.

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?

States a concrete action (run a callable tool) plus two meaningful mechanics: passing arguments and optionally projecting output fields. It reads slightly tautologically against the name 'call_tool', and it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the siblings get_tool_schema and search_tools, which caps it below 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the discovery flow (search_tools to find a name, get_tool_schema to learn arguments), and no exclusions or alternatives. An agent is left to infer the entire routing decision, which is the core ambiguity for a dispatcher tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no behavior for unknown tool names, no note on whether 'page and summary' is a different return shape, no indication of response format.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though the compound 'or' clause trades a little clarity for that brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and its vague reference to 'page and summary' does not clearly describe what an agent receives. Combined with an undocumented required parameter, it is thin for a lookup/discovery 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 single 'name' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — not whether it is a tool identifier, whether it must come from search_tools, or how a browser tool name differs from a callable tool name.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'tool's input schema' are concrete, and the read-only nature separates it from call_tool. However the second half, 'or a browser tool's page and summary', introduces an unrelated, unexplained capability that muddies what the tool actually returns.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this over search_tools or call_tool, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid tool name found via search. The implied 'inspect before calling' workflow must be inferred.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the searchable corpus is callable and browser tools and matching is lexical over names/descriptions. It still omits result shape, ranking, and whether matching is substring or token-based AND/OR.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, corpus, and match strategy all appear immediately.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could reasonably say what a match looks like (tool name only? name plus description? schema?) to let an agent chain into get_tool_schema or call_tool. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies the primary parameter's semantics ('words in their names and descriptions'), which is more than the schema gives. However 'limit' is never explained and query syntax (multiple words, phrases, operators) remains ambiguous.

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?

Names a specific verb ("Find") and resource ("tools"), and adds real scope detail: the corpus is 'callable and browser tools' and matching is by words in names and descriptions. It is clearly a discovery tool and does not read like its siblings call_tool/get_tool_schema, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Nothing states when to reach for search_tools versus get_tool_schema or call_tool, or that it is the discovery step preceding invocation. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no workflow context.

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