Discover local broadcast

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the network-touching nature is partly covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the empty-result possibility and the subnet limitation, but says nothing about how long the broadcast waits or how replies are aggregated; the output schema covers the return shape.

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 with the action and protocol, followed by a short caveat and fallback. Four tight sentences; only the doubled-backtick reStructuredText markup is mild noise.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain reply contents, and it covers the key operational pitfall. The remaining gap is parameter guidance for the two optional arguments, which is minor for a fire-and-collect discovery call.

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% and the description never mentions `timeout` or `device_id`, so an agent gets no help understanding the timeout's units or why a device_id would be supplied at all. The protocol detail is useful but does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

A precise verb-plus-protocol statement: it broadcasts a DISCOVER_REQ on UDP port 65001 and collects DISCOVER_RPY replies. That tells an agent exactly what happens on the wire and implicitly separates it from the cloud and targeted-discovery siblings.

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?

Explicitly warns that an empty list is a legitimate result and explains why (broadcast does not cross VLAN/subnet boundaries), then names the two alternatives: discover_cloud() or a known IP plus get_discover(). This is exactly the when-it-fails/when-to-use-otherwise guidance an agent needs.

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