discover_browse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the sequence of operations (DNS lookup, fetching server metadata, fallback to initialize) and the lightweight nature (no MCP session unless needed). This provides meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not address potential errors or outputs.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise at two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose ('DNS lookup + server card in one call') and every subsequent sentence adds necessary detail about behavior and comparison to alternatives. No filler or redundancy.

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 composite tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and fallback behavior, which is sufficient for most usage. It does not explicitly describe return values, but given the step-by-step explanation and the simplicity of the single parameter, the context provided is nearly complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'domain' with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level information; it only references the domain implicitly. Since the schema is highly descriptive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'DNS lookup + server card in one call' and details the specific actions (looks up TXT records, fetches .well-known/mcp.json). It also distinguishes itself from sibling 'browse' by noting it is 'lighter' and does not create an MCP session unless needed.

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 description provides clear usage context by comparing with 'browse' ('Lighter than browse — no MCP session unless needed') and explains the fallback condition ('Only falls back to MCP initialize if no server card is found'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or how it relates to 'discover' and other siblings.

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