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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add non-safety context. It does disclose catalog breadth (~200 tools) and that results are links/ids rather than answers, though the return shape is partly redundant with the existing output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition before the return behavior and the chaining advice. Every sentence carries routing information; nothing is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description correctly avoids re-explaining the result structure and instead covers purpose, trigger, catalog scope, and the id-to-run_tool handoff. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke this tool 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%, so both query and limit are already documented with examples and a default in the schema. The description adds no syntax, matching behavior, or default semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 (find) and resource (built-in tools for calculator/converter/generator) plus the concrete job it performs: resolving a tool name to its id. It explicitly distinguishes itself from run_tool, so an agent can differentiate it from the sibling that actually executes tools without opening 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?

Gives the trigger ('when the user asks for a calculator, converter or generator... and you need the tool's id') and names the follow-up alternative with its condition ('to get an answer from the tool, pass its id to run_tool'). Use-vs-alternative routing is explicit and complete.

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