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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not disclose side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether the dispatched tool may be read-only or destructive. It communicates only that arbitrary named tools can be run, leaving the important behavioral variability undocumented.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. Its brevity is appropriate for a concise dispatcher summary, even though other dimensions reveal missing detail.

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 generic dispatcher with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested arguments object, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the discovery workflow via find_tool, how arguments should be shaped or forwarded, what happens on invalid tool names, or what kind of result is returned.

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%, with both 'name' and 'arguments' described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds only the idea of running by name and beyond the default list; it does not explain how arguments are forwarded or what the nested 'arguments' object should contain beyond the schema's brief note.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run any Finbolt data tool by name.' The phrase 'including ones not in the default list' helps distinguish this dispatcher from the fixed sibling data tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with find_tool or search_endpoint.

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?

Usage is implied by 'including ones not in the default list,' suggesting this tool is for invoking tools beyond the visible sibling list. The schema's 'Exact tool name from find_tool' hints at a discovery workflow, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives.

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