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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information ('currently released', 'approved', 'paginated'), but it does not disclose details like locale constraints or cursor mechanics. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every phrase adds meaning, and the core purpose is immediately clear.

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 tool is simple, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no guidance on cursor-based pagination or locale, the description is not fully complete on its own for calling the tool correctly.

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 three undocumented parameters. It only hints at 'paginated index', which loosely maps to limit and catalog_cursor, but locale is entirely absent and no parameter is explicitly explained. This is a clear gap.

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 a specific verb ('Discover') and a concrete resource: 'currently released public tools and a paginated index of approved topics, questions, claims and guides.' This clearly identifies a catalog/list operation and distinguishes it from siblings like get_claim, get_guide, or search_public_knowledge, which fetch or search specific items.

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 implies usage for enumerating available tools and browsing the approved knowledge catalog, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It is clear enough in context, yet leaves sibling differentiation to inference.

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