Agent tool definitions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's added value is the disclosure that vendor objects carry nothing proprietary and that call instructions live in a separate executors map keyed by tool name, because extra keys cause a 400 at the vendor. That is genuine non-obvious behavior. It stops short of describing pagination or how totalMatched/notes behave at truncation time.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence carries information (schema fidelity, format shapes, executor map rationale). The style is dense and slightly clipped, but there is no filler or repetition.

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, and the description still covers the two vendor shapes and the truncation/executor caveats. The notable omission is sibling differentiation against astroway_mcp_tools_list, which matters for a meta-tool in a catalogue this large.

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 schema already documents q, limit, format and select, including enum values and defaults. The description only restates the format enum and its default, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (tool definitions for an agent framework) and states how they are produced (generated from the live OpenAPI document, so schema matches validation). However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling astroway_mcp_tools_list, which plausibly does something similar, leaving the agent to guess between the two.

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 an implied usage decision between formats (openai default vs anthropic) but that is really a parameter choice, not a tool-selection guideline. There is no statement about when to call this versus astroway_mcp_tools_list or astroway_mcp_agent_pool_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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