tool_inventory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states what the tool lists and the distinction between e2e_verified and best_effort statuses. It also mentions that tools needing extra configuration are highlighted. It does not discuss side effects, but as a zero-parameter listing tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core function. The bilingual repetition adds minor length but serves accessibility and does not introduce fluff. Every sentence contributes either what the tool does or when it should be used.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema provided, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, the categories it reports, and the use case. There is no missing information that would prevent a agent from selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so no additional parameter explanation is needed. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details, appropriately.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all BioMCP tools with their data source and verification status'. It clearly differentiates this tool from the sibling tools, all of which are domain-specific searches, by marking it as a meta-level inventory tool. The bilingual text reinforces the exact output contents (data source, verification status, extra configuration needs).

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?

The description states when to use the tool: to understand the credibility of each tool and avoid over-trusting unverified endpoints. It provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since it is a meta-inventory tool with no obvious sibling competitor, the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable.

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