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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the prerequisite of retrieving the schema, the requirement that arguments match, and the error condition on mismatched arguments. It does not mention what the tool returns, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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 appropriately sized, with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then provides the critical IMPORTANT note and workflow in a clear sequence. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers the necessary workflow and error behavior. It could mention the return value (the result of the called tool), but the overall context is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for both parameters. The description adds some context by reiterating that arguments must match TOOL_GET's schema, but this largely duplicates the schema's parameter descriptions. No significant new semantic detail is provided.

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 'Execute a tool by name with the provided arguments,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes TOOL_CALL from TOOL_GET and TOOL_LIST by defining its role in the workflow.

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 instructs to call TOOL_GET(tool_name) first and provides the complete workflow: TOOL_LIST -> TOOL_GET(tool_name) -> TOOL_CALL(tool_name, arguments). It also states that arguments must match the schema and that incorrect arguments will cause errors.

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