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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and an output schema exists. The description adds useful context beyond that: a hard batch cap of 5 tools and the fact that results include schemas, parameters, and usage instructions. It omits error behavior for unknown tool names.

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 with no filler, and the purpose plus the 'when to call' instruction is front-loaded in a single pass.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. The only real gap is behavior when a requested tool name is invalid or unknown.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema; the description's only added detail is restating the 'up to 5' cap. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve full JSON Schema definitions, input parameters, and usage instructions') plus a scope limit ('up to 5 Diogenes tools'). This is clearly distinct from its siblings diogenes_discover_tools and diogenes_execute_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?

Gives an explicit ordering rule: call after discovering tools and before execution to check exact parameter types. That effectively routes agents from discover → inspect → execute. It does not state exclusions or when to skip inspection (e.g. simple/no-arg tools), so it falls short of a full 5.

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