get_oidc_discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only retrieval action via 'Get' and identifies the resource, but it does not disclose response format, authentication needs, or potential errors. Those omissions are relatively minor for a well-known static discovery endpoint.

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 the action and resource front-loaded)Skip followed by the precise well-known path in parentheses. Every word earns its place and there is no filler or 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 parameterless GET to a standard OIDC discovery endpoint, the description supplies the exact URL and the resource name, which is nearly complete. It does not explicitly say the response is a JSON document, but the well-known path and 'discovery document' phrasing make that obvious.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there is nothing the description must add about parameters. The zero-parameter baseline applies here, and the description correctly implies that no arguments are needed.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OIDC discovery document'), and includes the exact well-known path. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_jwks or get_keys_info, which serve different discovery and key endpoints.

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 the usage case: whenever the OIDC discovery document is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. For a zero-parameter standard endpoint, the implication is acceptable but not explicit.

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