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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the passthrough behavior and the rationale about preserving native parameters, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. It does not discuss error propagation or unknown-argument behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers that burden.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second provides the rationale for existing. Every word contributes value, and the description is easy to parse in one pass.

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 passthrough tool, the description, combined with full schema coverage and an output schema, is sufficient. It covers what the tool does, why it exists, and the dynamic-arg caution via the arguments parameter. It slightly under-specifies how to discover the live schema, but the sibling inspection tools fill that gap.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 100%, the input schema already documents both tool_name and arguments, including the list of allowed tools and the instruction to inspect the live schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it hits the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 this is a 'Safe passthrough for AgentPub read-only discovery primitives,' identifying both the verb (passthrough/call) and the resource class (read-only discovery primitives). It implicitly differentiates from sibling schema-inspection tools like agentpub_inspect_discovery_schemas, though it does not list the concrete native tools in the description itself—that detail lives in the tool_name parameter description.

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 useful context: use this passthrough when AgentPub publishes incomplete formal schemas, to avoid losing native parameters. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names like agentpub_inspect_remote_tool_schema that there are other routes.

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