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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety/idempotency is covered. The description adds substantive context beyond that: outcome depends ONLY on supplied snapshots, the server observes nothing, no ranking/recommendation, and invalid/incoherent input 'fails closed with a coded error'. It omits auth/rate-limit details, so not a full 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps to a single dense paragraph where each clause carries real information (scope, determinism, failure mode). It is verbose and run-on in places, but nothing is filler or tautological.

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?

For a highly complex tool with nested objects, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, determinism, boundary conditions, and failure semantics; the output schema covers return values. The one gap is explicit when-to-use/routing guidance against sibling tools.

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 schema already documents the 5 parameters (bounds, wire format, canonical-identity requirement, requirements semantics). The description restates the candidate composition (network + ResolverManifest + CapabilitySnapshot) and the 1..16 bound but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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+resource ('Runs the real @nec/discovery discoverNetworks ... over 1..16 EXPLICIT ... candidate contexts') and names the precise output ('Core-built, Core-verified DiscoverNetworksResult with digests and per-candidate eligible/conditional/ineligible'). It also delineates what the tool is not ('observes nothing', 'does NOT choose, rank or recommend'), which separates it from ranking/selection tools.

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?

Conveys implied preconditions (candidates must be EXPLICIT, complete, already-derived; preflight is external) but never states explicitly when to call this versus its siblings (get_reviewed_evidence_case, list_network_profiles). The exclusions are negative rather than routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer the triggering context.

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