underwriter-discover

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

Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description aligns with them and adds useful dynamic context: it inspects currently mounted endpoints and execution contracts. It could have described what a successful response contains, but for a read-only discovery tool this is sufficient context.

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 two sentences, information-dense, and front-loaded with the key purpose. No word is wasted, and the second sentence supports usage without redundancy.

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 discovery tool with a rich intent enum and full parameter documentation, the description covers what the tool is for, when to call it, and what areas to explore. It does not describe the shape of returned discovery results, and there is no output schema, but the likely output is self-describing for a discovery endpoint.

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 at 100%, so the parameters are fully documented and the description does not need to repeat their semantics. The description enriches examples like jurisdictions, loan products, and previewSchedule, but adds no new parameter-level guidance beyond the schema.

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 names the subject (Underwriter API resources, actions, and execution contracts) and the verb 'discover/inspect', making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes itself from underwriter-execute by framing this as the preparation step, which is further supported by the sibling naming pattern.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before underwriter-execute and lists concrete things to inspect, such as jurisdiction discovery, loan product lifecycle actions, and schedule preview payloads. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use directive and differentiates it from the execute sibling.

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