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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond those annotations: it returns a menu of questions mapped to tool names and is intended as the entry point for unmatched messages. This is transparent about the tool's role and output.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The conditions for use come first, and the return behavior is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to parse.

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 simple fallback tool with one fully described parameter, strong annotations, and a stated return value, the description is complete enough. The absence of an output schema does not hurt because the description already explains what gets returned.

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%, and the single context parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema with word-count, perspective, and privacy requirements. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific set of triggers (greeting, connectivity test, 'what can you do', over-general messages) and states exactly what the tool returns: a menu of real questions mapped to tool names. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools that answer specific questions.

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 gives explicit conditions for when to call this tool versus the specific sibling tools below. It also tells the agent that the result will route the next call to the correct tool, which is strong usage guidance for a fallback/dispatcher tool.

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