get_oidc_discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the output (list of endpoints) but does not disclose potential side effects (network call), error conditions, or required permissions. The expected behavior is partially transparent.

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 three concise sentences: first states the action, second lists output, third gives examples. It is efficiently front-loaded with no unnecessary text.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and output. It could be more complete by mentioning that it makes an HTTP request and that the issuer_url must be a valid URL, but it is sufficient for the given complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by giving example issuer URLs (e.g., from Google and Microsoft), adding meaning beyond the plain schema title 'Issuer Url'. It helps the agent understand the format and expected value.

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 clearly states it retrieves the OIDC discovery document and lists returned endpoints (authorization, token, userinfo, jwks_uri). It provides an example issuer_url. The purpose is specific and distinct from sibling tools, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., decode_jwt, validate_jwt). There is no guidance on prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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