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

The annotations already establish read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description adds useful context by saying the relationships come from real agent usage. However, it does not disclose return format, freshness, limitations, or ranking behavior, so the added behavioral detail is moderate.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by concrete usage scenarios. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter read-only discovery tool, the description explains the value and intended use adequately. It lacks explicit return-value details, but with no output schema this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 100%, so the toolId parameter and its accepted formats are already documented in the schema. The description only implies that a given tool must be supplied and does not add syntax or example details beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: discover tools commonly used together with a given tool, based on real usage. It distinguishes itself from a generic discovery tool through the 'used together' relationship, though it does not explicitly name siblings like find_alternatives or discover_tools.

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?

It clearly states when to call it: to find complementary tools likely needed next, or to discover better-fitting tools. It does not provide when-not guidance or explicitly compare itself to sibling tools, so it stops short of the top score.

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