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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it reduces context load, returns matching tool names and parameter hints, and should not be called recursively. It repeats the safety profile rather than contradicting it, and the added behavioral context is valuable.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, safety, usage timing, parameters, return content, exclusions, and fallback feedback path are all covered in a logical, front-loaded structure. Minor redundancy with annotations ('Read-only. No side effects.') does not hurt clarity.

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 two-parameter meta-tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent when to invoke it, what it returns, when not to use it, and what to do if the result misses the user's need. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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% and the description largely mirrors the schema: it explains query as a required plain-English task description with examples and domain as an optional filter with allowed sub-servers. This adds no meaning beyond the input schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Find the right DataNexus tool by describing your task in plain English.' It is clearly the tool-discovery entry point and explicitly differentiates itself from validate_tool_output and report_feedback, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this before any other DataNexus tool'), a concrete reason (reducing context load from 40000 to 800 tokens), and exclusions: 'Do not call this recursively or to validate results — use validate_tool_output for that.' It even specifies the fallback to report_feedback when the result is inadequate.

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