call_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: mutating actions 'may ask the user to approve them first' and 'blocked actions never run.' It omits error/failure semantics and result format, but the approval and blocking behaviors are meaningful disclosures beyond the schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then provenance, then argument constraints, then behavior. No padding; every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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 generic dispatcher with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers purpose, argument sourcing, and approval/blocking behavior well. It does not describe what a call returns or how errors surface, which is the main remaining gap.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains the provenance and example format of tool_id ('screener/get_peers') and states that arguments must match the target tool's input_schema. This meaningfully clarifies both parameters despite the bare 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 ('Run a tool on a server connected to ToolBox') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the discovery siblings by noting that tool_id comes from find_tools or browse_tools, making clear this is the execution step rather than discovery.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it: you must first obtain tool_id via find_tools or browse_tools, and arguments must match the target tool's input_schema. It does not state explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions, but the prerequisite routing is clear.

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