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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful runtime behaviors: confirm should be true only for destructive/credit-spending tools explicitly requested by the user; over-budget results are materialized as workspace files; and a bad call returns the exact signature so the agent can fix args. This is rich behavioral detail that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 tightly organized: one purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter-by-parameter breakdown. No sentence is redundant, and the failure-mode note at the end earns its place by preparing the agent for the expected recovery action.

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 dynamic dispatcher with six parameters, no output schema, and a non-read-only, destructive-capable annotation, the description is unusually complete. It covers input semantics, output detail levels, oversized-result handling, pagination, field filtering, and the error contract, leaving little for the agent to guess.

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 0% and there are six parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains every parameter: tool names from arsaze_tools with an example, args as an object, confirm semantics, response_detail options and defaults, fields as dotted paths, and cursor as pagination. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run any Arsaze tool from the catalogue by name.' It clearly identifies this as a generic dispatcher and distinguishes it from the specific Arsaze sibling tools by framing them as targets selected via the 'tool' parameter.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever any catalogue tool needs to be invoked, with the tool name sourced from arsaze_tools. It also routes over-budget results to ws_grep/ws_read. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like run_timeline_batch or direct tool calls, so it stops short of a full when/when-not specification.

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