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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent lookup, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds that the return value contains a tool's full description and argument docs, which is useful because there is no output schema. However, it does not mention behavior for unknown tool names or any lookup limitations.

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 a single compact sentence with the key contrast front-loaded in a parenthetical. It contains no filler and is easy to scan.

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 simple read-only lookup, the description explains the return content and its relationship to tools/list. However, the only parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no note about error behavior for an invalid tool name. The definition is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 explain the single name parameter. It implies that 'One tool's' refers to the named tool, but it never explicitly states that the parameter is the tool name, nor does it describe format or case sensitivity. This leaves meaningful ambiguity for the only 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 identifies the resource: full description and argument documentation for one tool. It also distinguishes itself from tools/list by noting that the list output is only one line per tool. The only weakness is that it states the result as a noun phrase rather than using a clear retrieval verb.

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 parenthetical explicitly contrasts this tool with tools/list, making it clear that tool_describe is for when the short one-line listing is insufficient. It does not name exclusions or other alternatives such as tools_search, but the intended usage context is clear.

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