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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one valuable trait: the dry-run writes no calls row, i.e. it has no persisted side effect. It stops there, saying nothing about whether the tool's own side effects are suppressed, permission/tenant requirements, or what a run returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and the key constraint (no calls row). It is efficient, though the telegraphic 'for the other cases' phrasing trades clarity for brevity.

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 nested-args, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core behavior but omits return shape and the precise comparison against host.tool_call/host.tool_run. Adequate but with identifiable gaps an agent would need to resolve elsewhere.

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 all three parameters (name, args, tenant_key) are already documented in the schema, including the auth precedence rule for tenant_key. The description adds only 'by name' and implies args mimic a real call, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (dry-run) and resource (an already-published tool identified by name), plus a differentiating trait (no calls row written). However it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like host.tool_call, host.tool_run, or host.bridge_test, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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 names one alternative (host.quickstart) for 'the other cases', which is a real routing hint, but 'the other cases' is left undefined and the more obvious overlapping siblings (host.tool_call, host.tool_run) are never mentioned. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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