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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that it does not execute the tool and never requests or forwards an API key, which are critical safety behaviors. It also mentions the return type (domain, description, schema). This is strong transparency for a meta-tool that only inspects.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose and safety caveats are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp what the tool does and its boundaries. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core function, return values, and key safety constraints. There is no output schema, but it clearly states what information will be returned (domain, description, input schema). It does not mention error cases or partial-match behavior for tool_name, but for a simple inspection tool this is acceptable. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 parameters are fully described in the schema (tool_name: exact or partial name; domain: optional restriction). The description itself does not add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema covers the semantics completely, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Find and inspect' with a specific resource ('one underlying vertical MCP tool'), and details what is returned (owning domain, live description, input schema). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not execute the tool and never requests API keys, which sets it apart from execution or connection tools. This is a precise and unambiguous purpose.

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?

The description implies usage: when you need metadata about a tool before invoking it, this is the tool to use. It also clarifies what it does not do (execute or forward keys), which indirectly signals when to avoid it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when not to use' conditions, but the context is clear enough.

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