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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful fact that effects are delegated to the named target tool ('run any tool... with its arguments'), but says nothing about failure modes (unknown tool name, invalid arguments) or what is returned. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the annotations.

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, then the selection condition, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what comes back from the delegated call or how errors from the target tool surface, which matters for a dispatcher whose behavior is entirely determined by another tool. It does correctly point to discover for names and argument schemas, so an agent can invoke it, but return/error semantics are left implicit.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the example 'search_products' and the pointer to the target tool's input_schema. The description's 'by name, with its arguments' restates the schema rather than adding syntax, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (run a tool by name with its arguments) and immediately scopes it against siblings: tools already in the agent's list are called directly, not through this tool. An agent can distinguish run_tool from discover and the concrete siblings (submit_job, search_products, etc.) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: tools that are not in the agent's tool list, specifically ones added after the session started. Explicit when-not-to-use: tools already listed should be called directly. It also names discover as the source of valid tool names and argument shapes, which is the routing information an agent actually needs.

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