describe_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the output sections, but with an output schema already present that is largely redundant, and it says nothing about idempotence, permissions, failure modes, or what happens when the entry is not found.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the payload contents with no filler. It is efficient, though the compression contributes to the ambiguity about what a catalog entry is.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, so the section list adds little, while the two required parameters and their relationship remain unexplained. For a lookup tool with zero schema documentation, more identifying detail was needed.

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 0% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly suggests that an entry is identified by name/software; it never explains the required 'software' key, the 'name' key, or what 'as_markdown' toggles, leaving a required parameter pair undocumented.

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 states the resource ('one catalog entry') and the kind of content returned ('what it does, usage/syntax, parameters, example, docs link'), but the verb 'describe' is generic and it never clarifies whether an entry is a software package or a tool. Siblings list_tools, search_tools, and software_overview make that distinction important, and nothing here resolves it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call describe_tool, list_tools, search_tools, or software_overview, nor what prerequisite lookup produces the 'software'/'name' pair it needs.

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