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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it enumerates the absence of side effects (no project created, target invoked, or capacity reserved) and warns that authority is rechecked on every operation. This last point is a genuine behavioral trait not captured by annotations.

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-loaded with the verb and the payoff, and every clause adds information. There is mild overlap between 'Read-only metadata' and the following 'no project is created...' clause, but the overall density is appropriate for a six-claim discovery tool.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does enumerate the returned metadata categories (capabilities, schema IDs/versions, bounds, permissions, limitations, recovery). It stops short of describing the response structure, but that is reasonable absent an output schema.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument, capability-probing call.

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 (Discover) plus a rich, enumerated resource set: capabilities, authoring schema IDs/versions, resource bounds, credential permissions, limitations, and recovery. This clearly separates it from mutation siblings like firedrill_create_project and routes scope questions to firedrill_context. It does not, however, clarify its relationship to the overlapping firedrill_schema sibling, which likely also surfaces schema IDs/versions.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative for a related need: 'Confirm actual scope separately with firedrill_context.' It also frames the invocation context (read-only metadata reconnaissance before authoring). No explicit when-not condition is given, but the routing is clear enough to guide selection.

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