help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately characterizes the tool as informational — it 'returns aguide' and explains routing decisions, with no implied mutation or side effects. The only gap is that, absent an output schema, the exact form of the returned guide is left unspecified.

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 sentences with no waste: the core purpose is in the opening clause, and the second sentence adds routing value by naming the specific decision points. The enumeration of decision axes earns its place because it tells the agent exactly what guidance to expect.

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 zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to call it, and what decisions it resolves — sufficient for an agent to decide whether to invoke it. The only minor gap is the lack of detail on the output form, since no output schema exists to define it.

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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description doesn't need to compensate for anything.

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 'returns a guide to all available 5eMCP tools and when to use each.' It clearly positions this as the meta-tool among 44 siblings, distinct from search, get, and DM-calculator tools because it explains their selection rather than performing their function.

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?

'Call this first when unsure which tool to reach for' is an explicit when-to-use condition, and the second sentence enumerates the decision axes it covers (omnisearch vs typed search vs _get tools, class feature lookups, book content, DM calculators, fetch_content fallback). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, though 'when unsure' implies the opposite condition.

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