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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is '[free]', it 'Records demand only', requests are 'clustered by need', and recurring requests 'get built'. It also discloses the external API endpoints, which is valuable transparency.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the core purpose and free status. Every sentence adds value: usage timing, behavioral expectations, and API references. No filler or redundancy.

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 output schema exists and annotations are present, the description is complete. It covers when to use the tool, what it does, what it does not do, cost, and related endpoints. An agent has enough information to invoke 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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already provides clear descriptions and examples for both 'need' and 'context'.

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 purpose: 'Tell Agent402 about a capability its 500+ tools do not cover' and explicitly distinguishes it from catalog search/find tools. It also clarifies what the tool does not do: 'it never returns a tool or runs anything.'

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 usage guidance: 'Use it after catalog.search or catalog.find came back with nothing that fits, instead of giving up.' It also sets expectations that this is a demand-recording tool, not a resolution tool, preventing misuse.

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