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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating it 'probes availability, syntax, and compliance' and listing the specific file types it checks. This goes beyond the annotation's safety profile without contradicting it.

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?

One sentence with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Discover machine-readable entrypoints'), followed by a compact parenthetical list and a summary of checks. Every phrase 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?

With a single parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool does and what it checks. It could mention that the target should be a base URL or that only standard entrypoints are checked, but those are minor gaps given the simple context and existing structured data.

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 input schema already fully documents the single 'target' parameter with an example URL, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance (e.g., base URL format, trailing slash behavior), so it provides no extra semantic value beyond the baseline.

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 specific verbs ('Discover', 'Probes') and names a concrete resource list (robots.txt, llms.txt, ard.json, auth.md, OpenAPI, sitemap). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like glintbase_audit and glintbase_get_score, as this is the only tool about entrypoint discovery.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not state that it should be called before an audit, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The user must infer use cases from the tool name and sibling context.

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