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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it probes 22 documents, classifies results as served/missing/gated/soft-404, reports who asks for missing documents, and refuses certain host categories. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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?

The description is not concise: it embeds a long JSON-RPC invocation for a sibling tool and then packs the actual behavior into a single run-on clause. The structure makes it harder for an agent to quickly parse which parts describe check_discovery_documents itself versus the recommended first call.

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 does explain what the call returns in terms of document statuses and who asks for missing documents, which is helpful. However, the ambiguous 'FIRST CALL' block and absent guidance on groups and mcp_path leave the agent to infer some usage context from the schema alone.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents host, groups, and mcp_path. The description only contributes an example host value and does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific probing action over discovery documents (llms.txt, agent card, owners.json, etc.) for a host and distinguishes this from the no-argument sibling by showing host is needed. However, the leading 'FIRST CALL' JSON-RPC payload for a different tool muddies which tool is actually being described, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 explicit sequencing guidance: first call no_arguments_check_this_hosts_own_discovery_documents with the provided JSON-RPC payload. It also states operational limits by noting the tool refuses private, ephemeral, and its own hosts. It does not enumerate alternatives like validate_llms_txt or validate_agent_card, so guidance is partial rather than complete.

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