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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing what the tool returns: 'when to use it, what it refuses, a working example, effective access limits, important outputs, provenance fields, recommended next calls, and the shared natural-language-to-strict-JSON interaction contract.' It also discloses its 'blind-caller' nature, adding useful behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence lists the key informational outputs, and the second provides a clear usage workflow. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter, read-only, no output schema) and the description is exceptionally thorough. It explains purpose, usage, return content, and even the recommended sequence with tools/list. The description fully compensates for the lack of an output schema by enumerating the expected outputs.

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 already provides a clear description of the single parameter ('Exact tool name from tools/list'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds value by instructing to use tools/list to discover names, reinforcing the parameter's expected value and context, so the baseline 3 is exceeded.

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: providing 'guidance for one tool' visible on the MCP facade. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_catalog, get_pack, query_dataset) by focusing on tool-facilitation rather than data retrieval, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('guidance for one tool').

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use tools/list to discover names, then call this before an unfamiliar tool.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool (before unfamiliar tools) and implies a workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the alternative (tools/list) is named, earning a 4.

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