findCollectionByUrl

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

Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the reverse-lookup relationship and the input condition, but does not disclose matching behavior or no-match/return details beyond that.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the main question is front-loaded, the sibling relationship is given in a compact appositive, and the usage condition is tagged on at the end.

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-parameter lookup with read-only annotations, the description gives the purpose, input, and usage context sufficiently for invocation. It could name the return value explicitly since there is no output schema, but the phrasing 'which discovery collection serves' implies it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented as 'The URL of the collection.' The description only restates this concept via 'URL' and 'address', adding no new semantic detail.

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 a reverse lookup operation on a discovery collection by URL, using 'Which discovery collection serves a given URL' to state the exact purpose. Naming adtDiscovery as the forward counterpart differentiates it from the sibling tool.

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?

It provides an explicit use case: use this when an address/URL is already known and its capabilities are not. It names adtDiscovery as the forward lookup, but stops short of an explicit when-not or formal conditional alternative.

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