Call Tool

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for a generic proxy that can invoke arbitrary (potentially destructive) tools, yet says nothing about side effects, permissions, or reversibility. It also omits operational behavior an agent needs: what happens on an unknown tool name, whether arguments are validated against the target's schema, and whether the target tool's result is returned verbatim or wrapped.

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 short sentences, zero padding, with the action stated first and the routing hint second. Every sentence 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 an unannotated, no-output-schema dispatcher, the description should cover argument conformance to the target schema, error semantics for bad names/arguments, and roughly what comes back. None of that is present, leaving real ambiguity for a tool whose behavior depends entirely on inputs.

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 'name' and 'arguments' are already documented and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — notably it never states that 'arguments' must conform to the target tool's input schema, which is the single most important semantic constraint for this parameter.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Call a tool by name with the given arguments') and implicitly distinguishes execution from discovery by pointing at search_tools. It never mentions get_tool_schema, the other obvious sibling, so an agent can't fully tell whether it needs to inspect a schema first.

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?

"Use this to execute tools discovered via search_tools" gives a clear triggering condition tied to a named sibling, which is more than most definitions offer. It gives no guidance on the prerequisite step of fetching argument shapes via get_tool_schema, and no exclusions or failure conditions.

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