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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by explaining that invoked data tools read public sources, that reproduce_workbook may save an Excel file or return base64, that results include a provenance block, that failures surface as MCP tool errors with specific cases, and that calls are subject to a configurable timeout. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure beyond 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 front-loaded with the core action, then covers use cases, return behavior, error behavior, exclusions, and timeout. Despite being longer than a single sentence, every section is informative for a dispatcher tool and there is no obvious filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains that the tool returns the invoked tool's typed result with a provenance block. It also covers the major error modes and timeout behavior. Given the complexity of a tool-calling dispatcher, the definition is complete enough for an agent 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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the need for an exact tool name and arguments matching the referenced inputSchema, but this largely duplicates what the schema already states. No additional syntax, defaults, or constraints are added 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: run one data tool by exact name. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by saying that search_tools, call_tool, and plan_query cannot be called through it and must be called directly. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for executing a tool found through search_tools or plan_query. It also names the excluded meta-tools and instructs the agent to call them directly, and it explains that unknown names should trigger a search again. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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