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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns guidance content and references a shared interaction contract, without contradicting the annotation.

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 concise and mostly front-loaded, but contains some dense jargon like 'blind-caller' and 'natural-language-to-strict-JSON interaction contract.' It earns its place with practical guidance and a clear call-to-action.

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?

Without an output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool returns, including usage context, example, access limits, outputs, provenance fields, recommended next calls, and the interaction contract. It also provides a clear invocation workflow.

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% with a clear parameter description ('Exact tool name from tools/list'). The description reinforces the need to use tools/list but does not add substantial semantic meaning beyond 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 clearly states that this tool provides guidance for another tool on the MCP facade, listing the specific types of information returned. It distinguishes itself from the many domain-specific sibling tools by being a meta-tool for unfamiliar-tool assistance.

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 gives explicit guidance: use tools/list to discover names, then call this before an unfamiliar tool. This clearly states when to use the tool and implies it is not needed for familiar tools.

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