Disco

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it specifies this is a polling tool for monitoring asynchronous runs, describes typical processing times (3-15 minutes), and explains the relationship with other tools in the workflow. No contradiction with the read-only annotation exists.

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?

Perfectly structured and concise: purpose statement first, detailed return value documentation, clear usage guidelines, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words.

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 (asynchronous status checking), the description provides complete context: purpose, detailed return values (making output schema redundant), workflow integration, parameter explanations, and behavioral expectations. The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, and the description fills all other gaps.

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 by explaining both parameters: run_id ('The run ID returned by discovery_analyze') and api_key ('Optional if DISCOVERY_API_KEY env var is set'). However, it doesn't provide format details or constraints beyond what's implied, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 with specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a Disco run'), distinguishing it from siblings like discovery_analyze (which initiates runs) and discovery_get_results (which fetches completed results). It provides a complete functional definition.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Poll this after calling discovery_analyze' (when to use), 'Use discovery_get_results to fetch full results once status is "completed"' (alternative tool for next step), and context about typical runtime (3-15 minutes). This clearly defines the tool's role in the workflow.

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