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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It adds workflow context (post-discovery, pre-call) and implies a read operation ('Get'), but it does not clarify the return format or side effects. More importantly, it claims to accept 'a list of tool names' while the schema only allows a single string, creating an inconsistency that could mislead the agent about accepted inputs.

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 compact at two sentences, front-loading the core function and then attaching workflow guidance. The second sentence about lists adds useful context but introduces ambiguity and could be tightened to align with the schema. It remains concise and well-structured overall.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main workflow and purpose. However, it leaves gaps: it does not describe the structure of the returned schema, and the mismatch between the claimed list support and the actual parameter type is not resolved. These are notable omissions in an otherwise adequate description.

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 schema description for tool_name already provides an example. The baseline would be 3, but the description introduces a contradiction: it says 'one or more tools' and 'a list of tool names,' yet the input schema defines a single string parameter with no indication of how to encode multiple names. This actively misleads the agent, so a score below baseline is warranted.

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: 'Get the full schema for one or more tools including all parameters.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full schema'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like TOOL_LIST (discovery) and TOOL_CALL (execution) by explicitly placing it between them: 'After discovering tools via TOOL_LIST, use this to get the complete parameter schema before calling the 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 provides explicit usage context: it should be used after TOOL_LIST and before calling a tool, and it suggests using it when unsure which tool to call by providing multiple names. This is clear, actionable guidance that differentiates it from alternatives without needing to name every sibling.

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