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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context about enforcement of target tool constraints and audit logging, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add key constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant fluff.

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?

Given the tool's open-ended nature (executes arbitrary tools) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: the discovery workflow, naming, and enforcement of target constraints. It is sufficiently complete for a dispatcher, though it could mention error behavior for missing or invalid tool names.

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%, with both parameters (toolName and arguments) clearly described in the schema. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Execute an available FavCRM tool by name after discovering it with search_tools.' It uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (tool by name), and distinguishes it from siblings by highlighting the discovery step and the generic dispatcher role.

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 provides clear context by instructing to discover the tool first with search_tools, and mentions that target tool availability, schema, and gates are enforced. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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