read_llm_discovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which cover the non-mutating and side-effect-free nature. The description adds concrete behavior: 'Pure HTTPS GET, no auth, no side effects,' which reinforces but also goes beyond annotations by specifying the HTTP method and lack of authentication. It does not mention rate limits or response format, but given strong annotations, the description adds 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 a single paragraph but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then lists the file options with brief parenthetical explanations, and ends with usage guidance and a final sentence on behavior. Every sentence provides useful information; it is slightly long but justified by the number of file options.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what files are available, when to use the tool, and its trivial behavior. It could mention response format or status codes, but given the tool's simplicity and the strong annotations, it is adequately complete. The lack of output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values.

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%, but the schema itself contains a comprehensive enum for the 'file' parameter. The description explains what each file option represents (e.g., 'llms.txt (canonical agent index)', 'llms.json (structured prompt routing)'), adding meaning beyond the enum labels. It also states the default value. The description compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states the tool reads specific IntoDNS.ai discovery files (llms.txt, llms-full.txt, etc.), providing an explicit list of file names and their purposes. It distinguishes itself from get_citation_guidance by noting the difference between machine-readable API surfaces vs. topic-narrowed citations, making it unique among 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use when an agent needs canonical citation URLs, machine-readable API surface, or prompt-routing hints for IntoDNS.ai itself.' It also provides a clear exclusion: 'use get_citation_guidance for a topic-narrowed citation list,' naming the alternative tool directly.

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