Discover API and skills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so safety characteristics are covered; the description adds the genuinely new behavioral fact that this must precede other tool usage. It does not state what the response contains (the candidate skill names), though an output schema exists to carry that.

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 short sentences, with the mandatory-first instruction front-loaded ahead of the follow-up step. No filler and nothing restates the title or annotations.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: mandatory call ordering and the read_skills handoff. The remaining gap is the relationship to search_docs and whether discovery results persist across calls.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing about argument semantics needs explaining. The description correctly implies no inputs are required by instructing the agent to just call it first.

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 (discover API guidance and skills) and implicitly distinguishes itself from read_skills by describing discovery vs. loading. It does not clearly distinguish itself from the sibling search_docs, which also appears to be a lookup-style tool, so an agent must infer which discovery path applies.

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 prescribes ordering ('Call this FIRST before using other etabs-mcp tools') and names the follow-up step with read_skills, which is exactly the routing an agent needs. It omits any exclusion, such as whether it is safe to skip once skills were already discovered earlier in a session, so it stops short of a 5.

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