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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds that this reads the Estuary control-plane table 'discovers' via PostgREST GET /discovers, which is real backend context, but it omits pagination defaults and result shape behavior.

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?

Three compact clauses with the primary purpose front-loaded. The 'Estuary control-plane table discovers' phrasing is mildly redundant with the endpoint note, but nothing is wasteful enough to penalize.

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 single-optional-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, what a discover means, and the backing endpoint. Only the guidance on alternatives and pagination defaults is missing.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'limit' as the PostgREST max-rows value. The description adds no syntax or default-value detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (connector discovery jobs), and the parenthetical explains what a discover is (auto-detecting bindings/resources for a capture). This is far clearer than a name-only restatement, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like estuary_list_catalog or estuary_list_connectors.

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 statement of when to use this over competing listing tools, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The purpose is inferable from the parenthetical, but nothing routes the agent between this and the ten other list_* siblings.

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