Call Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the description needed to add context beyond the safety profile. Instead it adds nothing behavioral: no error behavior for unknown tool names, no note that the arguments object must conform to the target tool's own schema, and no statement about how results are returned.

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 with the core action in the first line and the routing note in the second; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the second sentence could have carried more of the behavioral detail the tool lacks.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is not obligated to explain return values. However, for an openWorld dispatcher that can invoke arbitrary tools, the critical mechanics (unknown-tool handling, argument-schema conformance, error propagation) go unaddressed, leaving it only minimally adequate.

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 both parameters ('name', 'arguments') are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by name with the given arguments' merely restates the schema and adds no format or constraint detail, such as the fact that 'arguments' must match the invoked tool's input schema.

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 ('Call a tool by name with the given arguments') and is clearly distinguishable from search_tools, which discovers rather than executes. It does not mention plan_query, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 an explicit workflow trigger and names the upstream step that must precede it, which is real guidance. It offers no when-not-use condition and never contrasts with plan_query, so it stops short of the top band.

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