Disco

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the verification flow (sends a 6-digit code, requires follow-up with discovery_login_verify), specifies error conditions (404 if account doesn't exist), and clarifies use cases (lost key or new agent session). Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, but the description enriches this with practical workflow details.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by workflow details, usage guidelines, and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (authentication flow with verification), the description is complete: it covers purpose, workflow, error handling, alternatives, and parameter semantics. With annotations providing safety hints and an output schema presumably handling return values, no critical gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'email' parameter's purpose ('Email address of the existing account'). It adds semantic meaning that the schema lacks, though it doesn't detail format constraints like email validation rules.

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 specific action ('Get a new API key for an existing Disco account') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning when to use discovery_signup instead. It provides a verb+resource combination that is precise and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this when you need an API key for an account that already exists') and when not to ('Returns 404 if no account exists with this email — use discovery_signup instead'). It also references the alternative tool discovery_login_verify for the next step, providing comprehensive guidance.

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