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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it scopes discovery to AgentMesh-native agents and rules out external MCP providers, which the annotations alone don't convey. It stops short of describing result format or pagination behavior, keeping it from a 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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: what it does, what it excludes, and where to go instead. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and no filler.

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 simple read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, and the alternative route. It could add a word on return shape or how capability strings are matched, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0% for the two parameters, so the schema only gives names, types, and a default. The description implies that 'capability' is the required selector but adds no format, syntax, or matching semantics, and says nothing about 'limit'. Baseline 3 given the schema's lack of descriptive detail.

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) and resource (AgentMesh-native agents) with a precise scope qualifier (advertising a capability you already know you need). It explicitly distinguishes itself from external MCP providers and from the sibling ask_agentmesh, making its identity unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (a capability you already know you need) and when-not-to-use (unknown or missing capability), naming the alternative sibling ask_agentmesh. Routing is fully specified with no inference required.

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