Discover OAuth and OpenID Connect metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, covering the safety profile. The description usefully adds that probing is limited to conventional same-origin documents (not cross-origin or custom paths), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about failure behavior when no document exists or about rate/network constraints.

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 with zero filler; the probing scope is front-loaded and the summarized outputs are appended compactly.

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 values need no explanation. Still, with 0% schema description coverage and no discussion of target URL format or negative results, the definition leaves a small but real gap for a tool with one required input.

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%, so the single 'url' parameter carries no schema-level documentation. The description partially compensates by implying the URL is an origin/base for same-origin document probing, but it never states whether a full URL or bare origin is expected.

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 ('probe') and resource ('conventional same-origin discovery documents') plus the summarized outputs (endpoints, grants, response types, PKCE). This distinguishes it from siblings like openapi_discovery and web_metadata_discovery, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer you call it against a target to learn its OAuth/OIDC configuration, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing against the many sibling discovery tools.

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