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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — the corpus is 768 historical operations and results may not reflect current state — but says nothing about authentication, result ordering, pagination behavior, or response characteristics beyond what the output schema covers.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The phrasing is somewhat cryptic ('discovery is NOT implementation/current UI completeness') but every clause earns its place.

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 output schema offsets the need to describe return values, but with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, an agent still doesn't know how to use the six filters or what the 'historical' caveat means operationally. For a 6-param discovery tool, the description does too little.

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 6 parameters (area, method, search, read_enabled, limit, offset), and the description explains none of them. The '768' figure hints that limit/offset paginate a large corpus, but the agent gets no guidance on what area/method/read_enabled filter or how search matches.

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 (search) and resource (768 historical API operations), and the caveat 'discovery is NOT implementation/current UI completeness' tells the agent this is a historical-discovery tool distinct from read/describe/preview siblings. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The caveat functions as a partial when-not: don't treat results as proof of current implementation or UI completeness. However, it never says when to prefer this over read_nextesy_operation, describe_nextesy_operation, or preview_nextesy_operation, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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