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

The description adds useful behavioral context: identical metering and plan gating apply either way, and the target tool's schema governs arguments. However, the destructiveHint=true annotation signals potential mutating/destructive effects without the description elaborating on what destructive behavior may result from dispatching an arbitrary tool. There is no contradiction, but the description could more explicitly warn about the indirect destructive risk.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The purpose, the fallback context, the alternative preference, and the discovery path are all front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 generic dispatcher tool with no output schema, the description explains the mechanism and the fallback rationale well. It lacks explicit guidance about how errors, return values, or destructive side effects are surfaced, and it doesn't mention whether the arguments object is validated before dispatch. The destructiveHint annotation makes the missing cautionary context more noticeable.

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 covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that arguments must match the target tool's input schema and directs agents to particle_catalog for details, adding modest value beyond the schema fields.

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 it dispatches any public Particle tool by name, identifies it as a compatibility fallback, and distinguishes it from direct tool calls. It names particle_catalog as the discovery mechanism, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it relates to siblings.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer calling discovered tools directly when the harness allows it, and to use this as a fallback for harnesses that block unadvertised tools. It also tells the agent to use particle_catalog to discover names and schemas, providing clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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