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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: the three operating modes and what each returns (catalog with one-line intents and recipes, best matches, full contract with examples). It does not disclose pagination, result limits, or format of the catalog, keeping it 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?

Three parallel sentences, each front-loaded with the triggering condition ('With no arguments', 'With query', 'With op'), zero filler, and no repetition of schema text. Optimal for a routing tool.

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 values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes what each mode returns. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. There is no missing prerequisite or caveat an agent would need before calling this entry-point tool.

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 coverage is 100% and each param already documents itself well, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining how op and query interact ('With op: that op's full contract and examples') and highlights the query example phrasing, which adds semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('Find out what this server can do') and enumerates three distinct modes keyed to the three parameters. Combined with sibling names like inspect/invoke/run_pipeline, an agent can tell this is the discovery/entry-point tool rather than an execution tool.

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 gives explicit when-to-use routing per argument state: no args for a full catalog, query for fuzzy matching, op for a contract. That is effectively an argument-driven decision table, leaving little inference to the agent.

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