general_describe_tool

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds value by detailing the exact return contents and flagging it as [PUBLIC], giving additional context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the first clause states the tool's purpose and the second gives the practical use case. Every word earns its place.

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 a single-parameter introspection tool, the description plus schema and annotations are sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description naming the return fields (description, inputSchema, exampleArgs, exampleResponse).

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 tool_name parameter is already fully described with an example ('broker_'quote_buy'), so the description doesn't need to add per-parameter detail. It does add context that tool_name refers to another tool in the catalog, but that's marginal.

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 uses a specific verb ('returns') and identifies a clear resource ('description, inputSchema, exampleArgs and exampleResponse of any other tool in the catalog'), making it easy to understand and distinguish from sibling domain-specific tools.

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 description states the trigger condition: 'Useful when an LLM needs to learn how to call a tool it hasn't seen before.' It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves an introspection role, so the guidance is sufficient.

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