call_remote_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is a raw remote call result and that auth_header overrides registered auth. It does not mention error behavior, side effects, or the fact that arbitrary remote tool calls may be destructive, which would be useful for such a generic passthrough tool.

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 organized with a short introductory statement, Args, and Returns sections. It is readable and information-dense. There is minor redundancy between 'Call a tool directly' and 'allows direct invocation of any tool,' but it does not hurt comprehension.

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 tool is a generic arbitrary remote invocation with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to cover a lot. It covers the naming convention, arguments, auth override, and raw return. It does not explain how to discover registered servers/tools, how to handle errors, or warn about side effects, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking arbitrary downstream tools.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three parameters: tool_name format, arguments as an optional dictionary, and auth_header as an optional override. The concrete example ('context7__query-docs') adds real value beyond the bare schema. It could go further on argument structure, but it is solid.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it calls a tool on a remote MCP server through the orchestrator. It also clarifies the exact name format, which helps distinguish it from generic tool use. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tool_search beyond implying direct remote invocation.

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 this tool is for direct invocation of a known remote tool, and gives the name format. It does not explicitly say when to prefer tool_search or when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is present but not fully developed.

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