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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and the description adds context about identical metering and plan gating. It also clarifies that all public tools are executable by name. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Concise and logically ordered: core behavior first, then fallback rationale, then guidance to discover schemas. No redundant repetition of the schema.

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?

Strong for a dynamic dispatcher tool: it covers when to use it, how to discover target tools, and notes metering/plan gating. It lacks output format details, but given the dynamic nature and the explicit pointer to particle_catalog, it is largely complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the two parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining how to populate them: use particle_catalog for names and schemas, and pass arguments matching the target tool's input 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?

Clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Dispatch any public Particle tool by name.' It clearly differentiates itself as a compatibility fallback versus the sibling particle_* tools, explicitly saying to prefer calling discovered tools directly when the harness allows.

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 states when to use the tool: as a fallback for harnesses that block calling tools not advertised on tools/list, and when not to prefer it: 'prefer calling discovered tools directly when your harness allows it.' Links to particle_catalog for discovery.

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