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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that this reads an Estuary control-plane table via PostgREST GET /discovers, but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or default ordering.

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 terse sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded; no filler. The staccato 'Estuary control-plane table discovers' fragment is slightly clipped but adds implementation context efficiently.

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 zero-required-param read-only list tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns at a conceptual level and where the data comes from. Only minor gaps around result size/pagination remain.

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% (the single 'limit' param is documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no information about the limit parameter or any filtering/ordering semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific verb and resource ('List connector discovery jobs') and clarifies with a parenthetical what a discovery job does (auto-detecting bindings/resources for a capture). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_drafts or list_connectors by resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 implied by the resource description rather than stated; there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many list_* siblings. An agent can infer the intent but gets no routing guidance.

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