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 context about the tool's role (discovery only) and the transition to Jentic One, which informs the agent about execution flow. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 concise: three sentences that clearly state purpose, scope, and execution context. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence serves a purpose without extraneous detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists (covering return values), and the description covers purpose, usage, and a note about Jentic One. It does not explicitly describe what results look like, but the output schema handles that. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with 100% coverage (query, max_results, api_names within the request object). The description only says 'Dictionary containing search parameters,' which adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not provide additional formatting, examples, or constraints for the parameters.

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 clearly states that the tool explores available actions/information based on user intent and discovers APIs/operations in the Jentic catalogue. It uses specific verbs like 'explore' and 'discover' with a clear resource scope, and it differentiates itself from sibling tools like execute by focusing on discovery rather than execution.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to discover what APIs and operations exist, and if you want to run a discovered operation, use the Jentic One flow. It implies an alternative (execute is a sibling, but not named explicitly) and gives a workflow, though it could be more explicit about when not to use it (e.g., for execution).

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