adtDiscovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns the service document with collections, URLs, and object types, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the response is large, whether it requires authentication, or how the document is structured beyond the basics.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the practical use case ('where the address of an unfamiliar collection comes from') is stated efficiently.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns and why an agent would use it. The only minor gap is not clarifying the relationship to adtCoreDiscovery, but the description is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is trivially complete (100% coverage with an empty object), and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool as the ADT service document, explaining that it lists every collection with its URL and object types. This is a specific resource and purpose, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling adtCoreDiscovery, which likely serves a similar discovery role.

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 implies usage: when you need the address of an unfamiliar collection, this is where it comes from. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus adtCoreDiscovery or other discovery-related siblings, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions.

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