Disco

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it explains the verification flow with specific return values, mentions the free tier details, notes the 409 conflict response for existing emails, and clarifies authentication requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose, process flow, tier details, authentication note, error case, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 (signup with verification flow), the description is comprehensive: it covers purpose, usage flow, behavioral details, parameters, and error cases. With an output schema present, it appropriately omits detailed return value explanations, focusing on process context.

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 compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'email' is for the new account and 'name' is optional with a default behavior (defaults to email local part). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a Disco account and get an API key') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'discovery_signup_verify' by explaining the verification flow. It explicitly names the resource (Disco account) and outcome (API key).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to start signup) and when to use an alternative ('discovery_signup_verify' for completing verification). It also states 'No authentication required' and mentions prerequisites like email verification, making usage context clear.

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