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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by identifying what information the call will surface: tool inventory, access prerequisites, documentation, and boundary information. It does not describe the output format, but the information scope is meaningfully disclosed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each listed item ('tools', 'product access requirements', 'documentation', 'external product boundaries') contributes a distinct aspect of scope.

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-argument, read-only capabilities discovery tool with rich safety annotations, the description is complete. An agent knows when to call it and what kind of information to expect, and no additional usage caveats are necessary.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve; the baseline is 4. The description instead reinforces that the tool's entire purpose is to return capability information rather than to accept inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Discover') and a concrete set of resources: available tools, product access requirements, documentation, and external product boundaries. This resource set is distinct from the sibling read/list/search tools, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening any other definition.

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 makes the intended use clear: call this when you need to know what tools and access are available for the product. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous for a no-parameter introspective tool.

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