discover

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by describing the tool as 'honest browse/digest/heuristics' and explicitly stating it is 'not a ranking product,' which clarifies expected output behavior beyond what the annotation conveys. The implementation note adds little, but the core behavioral caveat is valuable.

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 short and front-loaded, but 'Calls shared implementation in src.discover' is an implementation detail with no value for selecting or invoking the tool, and 'not a ranking product' is repeated in spirit twice. It earns points for brevity but loses them for the filler final sentence.

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?

The output schema and readOnlyHint cover some important context, and the mode list helps. Still, the description omits the meaning of days and limit, gives no explicit guidance on mode selection, and does not reference sibling tools for disambiguation, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with three defaulted parameters.

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 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of the parameters. It does provide the available values for mode ('random, digest, concepts, channels'), which is valuable, but it says nothing about the meaning, units, or effects of 'days' or 'limit', leaving two of the three parameters undocumented.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Discover AI content') and defines the scope ('without a specific query'), which immediately distinguishes it from the sibling search tool. It also names the operating modes and explicitly says it is 'not a ranking product', giving an agent a strong cue about what the tool is for.

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 phrase 'without a specific query' implies this is the browsing/exploration alternative to search, and 'not a ranking product' further reinforces when it should not be used. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as search, nor describe when one mode should be chosen over another.

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