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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'public' and 'related' scope but does not disclose additional behaviors such as rate limits, breadth limits, or pagination. It adds some context without contradicting annotations.

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 that combines the main action, target resource, and usage context without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with an output schema and safe-read annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly explains what the tool does and when to use it, though a brief note contrasting it with 'crawl' would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the url parameter is already well described in the schema. The main description only says 'from a page or domain,' which adds slight emphasis on accepted URL scope but does not meaningfully go beyond the structured parameter documentation.

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 resource ('related public links from a page or domain') and adds the exploration use case. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'crawl' tool, which may perform a similar link-discovery function.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'when the user wants to explore a site's structure or available pages.' It does not mention exclusions or compare itself to alternatives such as 'crawl', so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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