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

The description transparently explains behavior: it returns the full menu when no context is given or when context is a greeting, and it checks for additional tools as a fallback. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) by clarifying the output behavior ('returns the full menu instead of a dead end'). No contradiction with 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 two sentences, both dense with useful guidance. The first sentence establishes the primary use case, and the second covers edge cases and invocation details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and while the sentences are long, every clause earns its place—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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers when to use (fallback, greetings), what to pass (context or omit), and what it returns (full menu). The annotations already provide the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already fully documents the single optional `context` parameter ('A description of your goal... OR a plain greeting/liveness ping... Omit it for the menu.'). The tool description essentially restates this ('pass it as context, or send no arguments at all'), adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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: 'Check for additional tools whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities' and explicitly notes it 'returns the full menu' for bare greetings or general messages. This distinguishes it from the specific sibling tools (add-to-calendar, buy-ticket, etc.) by framing it as a fallback/discovery tool.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'whenever your task might benefit from specialized capabilities, even if existing tools could work as a fallback', and lists concrete cases (bare greeting, liveness test, or any message too general to match). It also instructs how to invoke it ('pass it as context, or send no arguments at all'), leaving no ambiguity about alternatives.

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