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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is an unconstrained dispatcher, and the description usefully explains why the world is open (dynamically added tools). However, it says nothing about failure modes for an invalid tool name, permission requirements, or that arbitrary side effects may result from the dispatched tool, which matters for a readOnlyHint=false router.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the use case and the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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-dispatch tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and the reason the target tool set is unknown. It is nearly complete; only error/failure behavior for a bad tool name is left unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'tool' and 'arguments' including the cross-reference to discover's input_schema. The description only restates that pattern ('by name, with its arguments') without adding format or validation detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (run any tool listed by discover) and explains the mechanism (by name, with its arguments). This clearly separates it from the concrete siblings like search_products or submit_job, which it dispatches to rather than duplicates.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (tools not in your tool list, added after your session started) and when not to (tools already in your list can be called directly). Both the condition and the alternative path are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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