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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds a genuine authorization disclosure: 'Discovery never grants access.' It also surfaces the fallback behavior. However, it says nothing about what the response shape or pagination looks like, so it's not fully complete.

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 compact sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the discovery purpose. The fallback sentence is slightly internal-context heavy against the little parameter value it adds, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no per-parameter explanation, the description leaves too much for the agent to infer. It should explain how account/workspace/tag scope results and what 'tag schema' returns.

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% for 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden but only implicitly covers two of them ('tags' for tag, 'one product' for service). The account and workspace parameters are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Discover) and resource (deployed API tags or a tag schema) for one product, which is clear enough that an agent knows what it retrieves. It doesn't name or differentiate itself from any sibling (e.g., get_endpoint_examples), so it stops short of full disambiguation.

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?

Usage is implied ('Discover... for one product') and the required service parameter suggests scoping, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-alternative guidance. The 'prefers versioned... falls back only when unsupported' sentence describes internal catalog selection, not agent-facing routing.

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