Resolve a user utterance to a local tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral constraints: 'One hop only,' 'do not ask for more tools,' and 'do not invent catalog names.' This adds transparency about limitations and expected behavior beyond 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?

The description is concise at three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. However, it uses undefined jargon ('envelope,' 'shortlist') that could be clarified without much additional length, so it is efficient but slightly cryptic.

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 covers the tool's routing logic and mode-specific behavior, and the presence of an output schema covers return values. Yet it leaves gaps such as the meaning of 'k,' how mode is determined, and what happens in error or edge cases. For a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, more context would be needed for fully reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the 'text' or 'k' parameters at all. It introduces terms like 'envelope,' 'shortlist,' and 'mode' without connecting them to the schema, leaving the agent without meaningful parameter-level guidance.

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: 'Map natural language to one leaf tool call against the local MCP catalog.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming nock.call and by describing mode-specific routing, making its role clear relative to nock.search and nock.status.

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 gives explicit mode-based guidance (fast, shortlist, escalate) and tells the agent what to do in each case, including 'pass the envelope to nock.call' and 'do not invent catalog names.' It lacks a direct contrast with nock.search or nock.status, and the modes are not present in the schema, but the routing instructions are specific and actionable.

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