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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false (so no safety profile is hidden), and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: the result, cost, and metering match a direct call and run_tool itself is free. It doesn't discuss failure modes or rate limits, so it falls short of a 5.

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 with no waste. The core capability is front-loaded, then the cost/metering reassurance, then the discovery pointers - each sentence earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a generic dispatcher, the description covers what the agent needs: scope (any tool, listed or not), cost behavior, and the discovery path to name/schema lookups.

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%, so 'name' and 'arguments' are already documented in the schema (including an example name and a pointer to describe_tool for argument shapes). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and resource: run any ToolForte tool by name with its arguments. It also carves out the key distinction from siblings — works even for tools not listed in this session — so an agent can tell it apart from direct invocation or the discovery 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?

Explicitly routes the agent through the sibling discovery tools: 'Find names with search_tools and schemas with describe_tool.' This is precise when-to-use and how-to-prepare guidance rather than inference.

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