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 so well: it discloses the auth/billing/validation path, that invoking call_tool itself is FREE, that the wrapped tool bills itself, and that consequential tools are NOT dispatchable. This goes beyond a generic 'call a tool' statement and anticipates the agent's safety concerns.

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?

Every sentence adds distinct value: the action, the dispatch scope, the exclusion list, the billing note, and the example. It is longer than a one-liner, but it is front-loaded and each clause justifies 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?

The description is sufficient for a dynamic dispatcher: it explains discovery, eligibility, billing, security gating, and gives a full invocation example. No output schema exists, but 'identical auth + billing + validation as a direct call' reasonably implies the wrapped tool's result is returned.

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 coverage is 0% and there are two parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains that name is the tool found via search_tools and that arguments are passed through, then provides a concrete example showing the nested arguments structure. It leaves the argument schema intentionally generic because it depends on the target tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Run a tool found via search_tools by name, passing its arguments.' It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by naming which tools it dispatches and explicitly listing consequential siblings (create_topup_link, create_baton, mint_token, ask_operator) that must not be routed here.

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?

It states when to use: for safe/billable utility tools already discovered via search_tools, and explicitly tells the agent to call consequential tools directly by name so the client can gate them with per-tool consent. This gives concrete selection criteria and names the alternative behavior.

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