counterpart_discover_printers

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real behavior beyond them: it listens passively for duration_ms, reports network='unavailable' when the port is busy, and explicitly never connects to or authenticates with a printer. That last line is valuable assurance a caller could not get from the annotations alone.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: capability, mechanism, payload fields, timing, failure mode, and safety boundary in three sentences. The opening 'Counterpart contract (counterpart/1)' tag is internal jargon that costs a little clarity but no significant space.

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 an output schema, the description covers mechanism, timing control, failure reporting, and the no-auth boundary, so a caller knows exactly what it gets and what could go wrong. Minor gap: no guidance on how to interpret or follow up on an empty or 'unavailable' result.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage including default, min and max, so the schema already does the work. The description restates the default of 4000 but adds no timing guidance such as whether longer listening finds more printers.

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 names a specific resource (Bambu printers on the local network) and mechanism (SSDP announcements on UDP 2021), and enumerates the returned attributes: serial, model, name, firmware. It is clearly distinct from status/print siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with counterpart_printer_info or get_printer_status.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery step, but the description never says when to call it versus counterpart_printer_info or the print tools, nor what to do if the result is empty. The 'network is unavailable when another app holds the port' note is the only conditional guidance.

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