discover_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the tool writes a local discovery snapshot and drift report while never modifying mappings or writing to Bullhorn, which is the key side-effect distinction an agent needs. It stops short of covering auth requirements, API-call volume, or failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by clearly separated side-effect, Args, and Returns sections; every line is short and scannable. The Returns section is largely redundant with the existing output schema and could be trimmed.

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 single-optional-param tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description covers purpose, scope limits, side effects, and the parameter's default. Missing auth/prerequisite notes are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 compensate, and it does: 'entities: Canonical or Bullhorn entity names to discover (default: every catalog entity)' explains both the accepted naming schemes and the default-all behavior. It does not describe what form the names take (e.g. delimiter or casing), so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Discover the tenant's Bullhorn field metadata') and immediately bounds the scope with '(metadata only; no record data, no samples)', which cleanly separates it from data-querying siblings like query_entities, search_entities, and find_records. An agent can identify exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 negative guidance ('no record data, no samples', 'never writes to Bullhorn') implies the intended use and rules out looking here for records, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or named alternative such as get_mapping_profile or connection_status. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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