Read Alza OAuth discovery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that the tool "changes nothing," returns a configuration document rather than account data, and that "no credentials are ever sent." This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, front-loads the resource and purpose, and every sentence earns its place: what it reads, when to use it, and what it does not do. There is no fluff or repetition of schema data.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description fully covers all the operational context an agent needs: purpose, scope, exclusions, side-effect absence, and credential safety. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 tool accepts zero parameters ja the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately clarifies what the returned document contains rather than inventing parameter details.

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 names a specific verb and resource: "Read the live OpenID Connect discovery document that the Alza mobile app uses," and it even lists the key fields the document contains. It clearly distinguishes this tool from shopping and OAuth action tools by stating it returns a configuration document, not account data.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: "Use only when debugging the OAuth flow or verifying which identity endpoints Alza exposes before calling auth_start." It also explicitly states when not to use it: "Do not use for everyday shopping," which prevents misuse even though no direct alternative is named.

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