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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses billing semantics: reads are charged from the call cost, nothing is charged when nothing is found or the call is blocked, calls over 50 reads return a price first and require confirm=true, and results are saved to Puley history. This is substantial behavioral context for a non-read-only, open-world dispatcher.

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 front-loaded: the core action and input shape come first, followed by return format, billing, confirmation, and history. Every sentence contributes useful operational information, with 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?

For a meta-tool with no output schema, the description covers return format, billing, confirmation, and history well. It could be more complete by explicitly directing agents to find_tool for discovery and by clarifying fallback or error behavior beyond blocked or empty results.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that tool is an id from the catalogue, gives example ids, explains that inputs must match the tool search's naming with example payloads, and explains confirm's role for calls over 50 reads.

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 states a specific verb and resource: run one tool from Puley's catalogue by its id. It gives concrete id examples and distinguishes the action from a search, but it does not explicitly name the sibling find_tool or otherwise clarify how this differs from the many dedicated tools.

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?

It implies the workflow by saying inputs must be named as the tool search lists them, and it explains the confirm behavior for expensive calls. It lacks explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-a-dedicated-sibling guidance, but the context is clear enough for an agent that already has a tool id.

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