Discover instruments on the LAN

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: discovery is unreliable ('many scopes do not advertise') and empty results are expected rather than errors. That expectation-setting is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism and services, followed by the operational caveat. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be restated. For a zero-required-param, read-only discovery tool, the description covers purpose, expectation of empty results, and fallback routing — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100% (timeout_s is fully documented with bounds and default), so the baseline is 3. The description says nothing about the timeout or browse duration tradeoff, adding no meaning 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?

States a specific verb (browse) and resource (mDNS for LXI, VXI-11, HiSLIP, SCPI-raw services), which cleanly separates it from list_instruments (known instruments) and open_instrument (direct connect). An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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 second paragraph tells the agent what an empty result means and routes to the fallback ('open by IP instead'), which implicitly points at open_instrument. It lacks an explicit statement of the primary trigger (e.g. 'use when the instrument's address is unknown'), so it is strong but not fully prescriptive.

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