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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the listing is public and includes verification entry points, but says nothing about freshness, filtering behavior, or scope limits beyond that.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It could be tighter by dropping the trailing clause about the verification tool, but it is efficiently sized.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain return values. What remains is a light gap around when discovery is the right call versus a direct verify tool, but the core scope is covered.

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?

With a single optional 'query' parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the filter. The description only restates that the query contextualizes discovery, adding no syntax or matching semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource: list Burs-IA public capabilities and compatible entry points. It also names one included item (public MCP verification value tool), which partially orients it among siblings, though it does not clearly distinguish itself from bursia_verify_mcp.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'discover' and the mention of verification entry points; there is no explicit when-to-use statement or instruction to prefer this over bursia_verify_mcp or capability_triage when the agent already knows what it wants.

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