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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses cost ('Free'), the exact protocol performed, the safety profile ('without a CORS-blocked or SSRF-risky direct connection'), and an important boundary ('never invokes another agent's tools'). It does not cover failure behavior when the endpoint is unreachable or not MCP, or any rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and safety rationale in one dense paragraph; every sentence carries information. It is a touch long for two optional parameters, and the lookup note is tacked on at the end rather than integrated.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return contents (serverInfo, tools, detected skills). For a 2-optional-param, annotation-free discovery tool, the main remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior for bad or unreachable endpoints.

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 coverage is 50% — only 'endpoint' is described in the schema, while 'id' has just a pattern. The description adds some meaning by framing both as lookup keys ('by id or by declared endpoint URL'), but it doesn't explain mutual exclusivity, which one is preferred, or what happens if neither/both are supplied (0 required parameters).

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 and resource — performs a real MCP handshake (initialize + tools/list) against the agent's declared endpoint and returns serverInfo, tools and detected skills. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_agent_record (stored record) or ask_agent (actual invocation).

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?

Gives a clear use context: 'see what an indexed agent actually exposes before routing work to it.' It also says lookup can be by id or endpoint URL. It stops short of naming concrete alternatives (e.g., get_agent_record for cached metadata) or stating when live discovery is unnecessary.

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