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 implies a read-only introspection but never states that explicitly, nor does it cover behavior for unknown/invalid names, case sensitivity of the name, or authentication needs.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the key constraint ('by name') front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. But with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description leaves an agent unable to tell how this differs from list_capabilities or what a valid name looks like — significant gaps for a discovery tool.

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 the single `name` parameter. The description partially compensates by saying the name identifies a *registered tool*, which constrains the value beyond a bare string, but it doesn't clarify exact-match vs. fuzzy, casing, or the fully-qualified naming convention used by siblings (e.g., 'gbp.accounts.list').

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?

"Describe a registered tool by name" gives a verb (describe) and a resource (registered tool), but 'describe' is left unqualified — it doesn't say whether it returns the tool's schema, annotations, or a prose summary. The phrase also largely restates the name and title, adding only 'registered' and 'by name'.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as list_capabilities or health, which appear in the sibling set. Nothing indicates prerequisites (must the tool already be registered? what happens for an unknown name?).

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