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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that a miss results in a typed abstention and logging, and reassures that the tool never guesses. This is valuable transparency for agent decision-making.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded: the first sentence defines purpose and format, the second provides critical behavioral rules. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's generic nature (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential connection to describe and the abstention logging. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly, though it could mention return behavior (though output schema is absent).

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 all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., clarifying that args come from describe's inputSchema), which is helpful but not substantial. 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?

The description clearly states that the tool invokes a domain verb discovered via describe, with a specific format call(domain, tool, args). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing that it is identical to the namespaced tool surface and that agents must not invent verb names.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (after describe), and what to avoid (inventing tool names). It also explains the behavior on a miss (logged abstention, never a guess). However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or list alternatives.

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