collectionFeatureDetails

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

Because annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description does not need to re-state safety. It adds value beyond annotations by disclosing what the operation exposes: capabilities, supported types, and versions. This is useful context given there is no output schema declared.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words and front-loads the main subject (collection) and the key return contents. However, the wording 'What one collection ... offers' is slightly unusual for a command-oriented tool; a clearer phrasing such as 'Retrieve the details of a single collection...' would be more direct.

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?

Given the low parameter count, the explicit annotation of a safe read-only operation, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the basics well. It states what a caller will get (capabilities, types, versions) and the resource domain (discovery document). It could mention how to obtain the URL (e.g., via a discovery endpoint), but the parameter schema already describes the URL input.

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 100% and the only parameter, url, already has a clear schema description. The tool description mentions 'collection' and 'discovery document', which loosely relates to the url parameter, but it does not add meaningful detail about the URL format or how the URL identifies the collection. Therefore it sits at the baseline of 3.

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 identifies a specific resource (a collection in the discovery document) and its content (capabilities, supported types, versions), but it never states an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'get.' It reads more like a statement about the resource than a clear operation description. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling featureDetails.

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 'what one collection of the discovery document offers' implies the intended use is to fetch details for a single collection, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over featureDetails or findCollectionByUrl. There is no when-not-to-use direction or mention of alternatives, so the guidance is only implicit.

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