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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns capabilities and a count of verified records, which is useful output context, but it does not disclose rate limits, auth requirements, or response structure.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no filler or redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a simple 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only catalog tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description gives only a basic indication of return content. It does not explain what 'capabilities' means in practice or how the count is formatted, leaving minor gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is effectively complete by having an empty properties object. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, matching the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.

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 resources ('DatoQA capabilities' and 'number of available verified records'), so the agent can tell it is a metadata/count tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_record, list_sources, or search_recalls, and 'capabilities' remains somewhat vague.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives exist. Usage is only implied by the description's focus on discovery and counting, leaving the agent to infer that it should be called before more specific retrieval tools.

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