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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining pagination through meta.nextCursor and the follow-up routing to get_handbook for page IDs.

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 short sentences with no wasted text. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by pagination and the relevant follow-up tool.

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 presence of an output schema and rich annotations reduces the burden on the description. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves the limit and cursor inputs unexplained, and it does not distinguish this listing tool from search_handbooks.

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 for the two parameters, limit and cursor. It mentions meta.nextCursor for pagination but never explains the input 'cursor' parameter, its format, or the 'limit' parameter at all.

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 uses the specific verb 'Discover' with the resource 'handbooks' and scopes it to those 'this integration can read.' It is distinguishable from get_handbook and get_page, but it does not explicitly contrast with search_handbooks.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: follow meta.nextCursor for more results and use get_handbook to discover page IDs. It lacks explicit when-to-use guidance versus search_handbooks, so it is strong but not complete.

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