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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting the tool does not execute JavaScript or bypass access controls, and that results are 'bounded' (likely cached). No contradiction with 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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage constraints and parameter guidance. Four sentences, no fluff. Minor redundancy with schema details prevents a perfect score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers the main use case, constraints, and caching behavior. It lacks a precise definition of 'bounded' but this is minor. Overall complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already thoroughly describes both parameters, including SSRF protections for url and cache semantics for fresh. The description largely reiterates this information ('Pass url as an absolute public HTTP(S) URL', 'Keep fresh=false to allow cache reuse'), adding no significant new meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') with a clear resource ('bounded OpenAPI candidate links') and scope ('declared by the requested page'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web.site.sitemaps or web.site.robots, which target different link types.

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?

Provides explicit usage constraints: 'Use only for public HTTP(S) resources' and clarifies it 'does not execute JavaScript or bypass access controls.' Also gives guidance on the fresh parameter (cache reuse vs. new fetch). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for cases where JavaScript execution is required.

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