Describe a tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations do not: an unknown name produces an error rather than an empty result. It does not describe response shape or size, but the output schema carries that.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the workflow placement and error behavior appended as compact clauses. Nothing restates the tool name or title.

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?

The tool is simple: one required string parameter and an existing output schema, so return values need not be explained. Action, placement among siblings, parameter source, and error behavior are all covered — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100% and the single name parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds value beyond that by tying the parameter to its source ('as find_tool returned it' semantics) and stating the failure mode for an unrecognized value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — read one tool's full description plus its input JSON Schema — and positions itself relative to find_tool and run_tool. An agent can distinguish it from the siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the workflow position (between find_tool and run_tool) and the triggering condition (find_tool's signature does not settle an argument). That is a when-to-use rule plus the alternative it supersedes, with no inference required.

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