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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: 'Free, public read' (no auth/quota cost) and 'without executing them' (side-effect-free discovery), which is the trait that most affects invocation decisions. No mention of result-size limits or pagination, keeping it at 4.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and side-effect safety before the mode selection detail. No filler, though the mode enumeration in one sentence is dense enough that a reader must parse carefully.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately by describing what summary and schema modes yield. Selector union semantics and the areas-with-no-selectors constraint are covered. It leaves minor blanks (whether summary includes area groupings, or result caps) but nothing that would cause a wrong call.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics not present in the schema: the three detail modes and what each returns, and critically that 'combined selectors form a union' — a non-obvious interaction rule for the areas/names arrays. It also clarifies that areas are names returned by detail=areas, tying the two parameters together.

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 ('Discover Mangrove managed tools') and immediately adds the key differentiator 'without executing them', which separates it from the many get_*/list_*/run_* siblings. An agent can tell this is a metadata-catalog tool, not a data-fetch tool, without opening the schema.

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 concrete directive guidance per mode ('Use detail=areas for the functional area index') and defines default behavior (summary), which is exactly the routing information needed. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over siblings like list_strategies or get_execution_config_schema, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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