read_llm_discovery

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: 'Pure HTTPS GET, no auth, no side effects.' This clearly indicates no destructive actions or side effects.

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?

Description is a single dense paragraph; all sentences are informative but could be broken into bullet points or shorter sentences for readability. Still concise relative to content.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations of purpose and behavior, the description covers all necessary context without gaps.

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 has one parameter with enum values but zero description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining each file type's purpose (e.g., 'llms.txt (canonical agent index)') and default value, which goes beyond 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 specifies a read-only fetch of IntoDNS.ai LLM/agent discovery files, listing each file type and its purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tool get_citation_guidance by stating when to use this tool instead.

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 states when to use: when an agent needs canonical citation URLs, machine-readable API surface, or prompt-routing hints. Also provides alternative: 'use get_citation_guidance for a topic-narrowed citation list'.

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