Describe a tool

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns by saying "Return." The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the exact output content (full description and JSON Schema). No contradictory behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and output. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully captures what is returned and how to obtain the tool name. The read-only annotation covers safety, and the context with siblings is clear.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with an example. The description adds a useful hint that the name should come from search_tools, which gives meaning beyond the schema's bare definition.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to return the full description and JSON Schema for one tool. The verb "Return" and resource "description and JSON Schema" are specific, and the mention of "discovered via search_tools" distinguishes it from siblings like search_tools and invoke_tool.

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 implies usage after search_tools by stating the tool is "discovered via search_tools." This gives context but does not explicitly exclude other alternatives or state when-not-to-use. It is clear enough given sibling names, but lacks the explicitness of a 5.

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