Describe Tool

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context beyond them: the result is the exact full-mode tools/list entry, and only *enabled* tools are addressable — a meaningful scope restriction not expressed in the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first clause, then a short args note. The args section duplicates the schema description rather than adding value, which is minor waste, but the whole definition is two sentences and easy to scan.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter lookup tool with annotations and an output schema, so return-value detail is unnecessary. The description tells an agent exactly what to supply and what it gets back; only error behavior on a non-enabled name is unstated, which is a minor gap for this complexity.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The 'Args' block restates the schema text nearly verbatim ('Exact enabled tool name from search_tools, for example ...'), adding little beyond it; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Return the complete enabled tool schema,' and clarifies the shape of the payload as 'identical to its full-mode tools/list entry.' It implicitly separates itself from search_tools (which supplies the name) but never explicitly contrasts with call_read_tool or call_write_tool, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 phrase 'Exact enabled tool name from search_tools' implies the intended workflow: search first, then describe. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-invoke guidance (e.g., 'use before call_read_tool when you need full parameter details'), and no statement about what happens for a disabled or unknown tool name.

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