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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description's marginal burden is low. It still adds real value by disclosing the "[Public, no account needed]" auth profile, which is the one thing an agent would otherwise guess at before calling. It stops short of describing response size or format, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Three compact clauses carry purpose, content, routing, and access level with zero filler, and the core statement of what the tool returns is front-loaded. The bracketed access note is a deliberate, tight tag rather than prose padding.

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 no output schema, the description is the only place a caller learns what comes back, and it does so at a summary level (endpoints, base URL, rate limits). For a zero-parameter, read-only public document that is nearly sufficient; only the structure/depth of the returned document is unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond confirming it is a no-argument read. This sits at the baseline for parameterless tools.

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?

"Read WEIR AI's public discovery document" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical enumerates exactly what is inside (public endpoints, base URL, rate limits). It also names the sibling to avoid (search_catalog for licensing), so the tool is distinguishable without opening the schema.

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?

"Use when you need to learn the API surface" states the triggering condition, and "for licensing questions use search_catalog instead" supplies an explicit exclusion plus a named alternative. Nothing about when to pick this tool is left to inference.

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