browse_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the hierarchical browse behavior (servers -> server tools -> single tool detail) which is real behavioral context. It omits any note on catalog size, pagination, or truncation, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the when-to-use fallback condition followed by a compact mode table. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 description covers when to use it and what every parameter variant returns. The only gap is operational scale — nothing about how large the server/tool listings may be or whether results are paged.

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 0% and both parameters are undocumented strings, yet the description fully compensates: no args = server list, server="kite" = that server's tools, tool_id="kite/get_ltp" = full detail. It even conveys the expected tool_id format (server/tool) by example.

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+resource ('look through the tool catalog') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling find_tools by positioning itself as the fallback. The three drill-down modes make the tool's scope unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering condition ('when find_tools didn't surface what you need') and the alternative it follows, which is exactly the routing an agent needs. It also enumerates the three invocation modes, so there is no ambiguity about how to use it once selected.

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