Call any upstream tool

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

Annotations already communicate the open-world/destructive nature, so the description only needs to add context; it does so by noting the withheld tool list and that arguments are validated first. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: core action, usage context, and validation behavior. No filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.

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 an open-world dispatcher, the description covers how a name is found, what form it takes, how to obtain the arguments object, and the validation guarantee. The output schema covers return expectations, so nothing critical is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents the name pattern and points to mcptoon_inspect for the arguments object. The description's 'validated first' is behavioral rather than semantic parameter detail.

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 opens with a specific action—'Run any upstream tool'—and names the exact resource format ('namespaced name (server_tool)'). It also separates this execution tool from sibling discovery/introspection tools by pointing to how one arrives at a name via mcptoon_manifest.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use signal: under default compact exposure the tool list is withheld, so this is the route to run a tool discovered through mcptoon_manifest. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases or name alternative tools, which keeps it a 4 rather than a 5.

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