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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that the searchable corpus is Discord's OpenAPI spec and that matches are operation IDs, telling the agent this is a static index lookup, not a live API call. It does not describe result shape or match ranking, so not a 5.

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 sentences, no filler. The primary purpose and sibling linkage come first, and the follow-up sentence on operation IDs and examples directly supports correct invocation and correct downstream use.

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 one-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, this covers what to search, what the results represent, and which tool consumes them. The only gap is how results are shaped and ordered, which an agent can discover from the first call.

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?

The single query parameter has 0% schema coverage, so the description carries the burden and does well: it explains the query is matched against endpoint names or paths as words, with two concrete example queries. It does not specify matching rules (word intersection vs. substring) or result limits, leaving some ambiguity about how strict the matching is.

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?

Specific verb ("Finds") plus specific resource ("endpoints of the Discord API"), and it explicitly anchors itself to the sibling that consumes its results: "that discord_api_request can call." It also clarifies what the names actually are (OpenAPI operation IDs), which an agent could not infer from the name alone.

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 relationship to discord_api_request makes the use case clear: search here to discover an endpoint, then call it via that sibling. Example queries ("member role", "channels messages") demonstrate the expected input style. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule (e.g., don't use for listing servers/channels, which siblings cover), so it's clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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