cowboy_discover

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing what is returned (name, description, inputSchema, annotations) and that query+category combine as a filter. It does not discuss pagination, result limits, or behavior on zero matches, but the added return-shape detail is substantive.

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?

One sentence of purpose plus four arrow-form examples, with the purpose front-loaded. Every line earns its place by showing a distinct invocation pattern; there is no filler.

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 correctly compensates by describing the returned fields. For a zero-required-parameter discovery tool this is nearly complete; a note on result volume or on the discover-then-run workflow would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by demonstrating that 'query' and 'category' can be supplied together and are ANDed ('query="settings", category="woocommerce"'), a combining semantic the schema does not state. The enum values themselves are left to 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+resource ('Search or browse available WordPress tools') and names the two axes of search (keyword or category). It also declares the return payload, which makes it clearly distinct from the sibling cowboy_run, which executes tools rather than finding them.

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 four worked examples make the use cases concrete: keyword-only, category-only, and the combined-query form. What is missing is an explicit statement that this must be called before cowboy_run to obtain a tool name, or any note about when browsing is preferable to searching.

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