Candidate Compatibility Baseline

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

The readOnlyHint/non-destructive/idempotent annotations already cover the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the payload is schema plus usage documentation, but says nothing about behavior for an unknown or malformed tool name (error vs. empty result) or the size/shape of what comes back.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, no filler or redundancy. Nothing needs trimming; it is simply short because little was written.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload, and it does so only in the phrase 'schema and usage documentation'. For a discovery tool an agent relies on to bootstrap other calls, error semantics and payload shape are missing.

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?

There is a single tool_name parameter with full schema coverage, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it — no note on naming conventions, case sensitivity, or that valid values come from the sibling tool 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the schema and usage documentation for an OpenELIS tool.' It is clearly an introspection/meta tool, distinct in kind from the functional siblings (lens.*, tower.*, chaos.*), though it never names a sibling to sharpen the boundary.

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 intended use case is only implied — an agent should call this when it needs details about a tool. It never says when to prefer it over guessing parameters, nor whether it should be called before invoking an unfamiliar tool, and it gives no exclusions.

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