Describe tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds that both description and input schema are returned, which is somewhat redundant with the existing output schema. There is no note on behavior for unknown or invalid names, or on the 10-name cap (that lives only in the schema), so this is a baseline 3.

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 the payload, zero filler. Every word carries information and nothing is buried.

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 need no explanation, and the tool is low-complexity with one well-documented parameter. The only omission is edge-case behavior (what happens when a name is not found), which keeps it from a 5.

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% and the single parameter is documented with both provenance ('as search_tools gave them') and a limit ('at most 10'). The description echoes the provenance but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 has a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('the full description and input schema of tools'), and it ties itself to the sibling search_tools as the producer of the names. An agent can tell it apart from search_tools (discovery) and call_read_tool/call_write_tool (invocation). It stops just short of 5 because it does not explicitly say what it is *not* for relative to those call 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 phrase 'tools found with search_tools' establishes the workflow: search first, then describe before invoking. That is clear contextual guidance, but there are no explicit exclusions (e.g., 'do not use this to execute a tool' or 'use call_read_tool to actually run it'), so it stays below the 5 bar.

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