Get service container discovery

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive safety traits, so the description only needs to add value beyond that. It does: it discloses the required scope (applications:read) and a non-obvious data limitation (never returns environment values or mounts), which an agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not describe pagination or the response payload, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the negative constraint against re-creating a discovery. The auth scope is a terse trailing clause; no wasted sentences, though the opening phrasing is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it partially does so by naming the terminal states (succeeded/failed/expired) and stating what is never returned. It still does not say what the payload actually contains, a minor gap for a polling GET, but nothing prevents correct invocation.

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 50%: orderNo is fully documented, discovery_id is only typed as uuid with no description. The description adds the notion that the discovery UUID must be retained across polls until a terminal state, which gives discovery_id lifecycle meaning, but it adds nothing about orderNo. Baseline 3 for partial coverage.

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 and resource (poll a persisted service container discovery) and distinguishes itself from the sibling discover_service_containers by explicitly saying it does not create another discovery. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Clearly frames the invocation context: poll the discovery previously returned by discover_service_containers while it remains pending, and keep the UUID until a terminal state. It does not explicitly spell out what to do instead once the discovery reaches succeeded/failed/expired, but the routing condition is unambiguous.

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