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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the cost trait ('Free') and a list of returned fields, which is helpful but minimal; it does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or error behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by a precise usage condition and a cost note. Every clause earns its place 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 simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: purpose, usage relative to search_tools, cost, and expected return contents. No critical information is missing.

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 the single parameter 'name' is fully documented with an example ('validate_iban'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (it merely says 'by name'), so the 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?

States a specific verb (describe) and resource (one ToolForte tool by name), and enumerates exactly what the definition includes (description, schemas, annotations, cost, example). It also names the sibling search_tools, making the distinction clear without needing to open either 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?

Explicitly says 'Use it after search_tools when the argument summary is not enough', which gives both the sequencing and the condition for choosing this tool over the alternative. The implied inverse (use search_tools when the summary suffices) is clear from the phrasing.

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