discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that providers run in order (local catalog, live web search, then configured commands), returns one entry per site with a short rationale, and expects downstream usage with critique. It omits details like side effects or limits, but covers the main execution behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. It avoids filler and fits the tool's complexity well.

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?

The description gives a useful orientation and even references downstream critique usage, and an output schema exists. However, it leaves important gaps such as the meaning of 'n' and provider input format, and it does not explain how this tool relates to the sibling 'search' tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the 'intent' parameter well with examples and hints at 'providers' by describing provider ordering, but it says nothing about the 'n' parameter or how to format the providers value.

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: 'Find reference sites for what the user is building,' with concrete examples. It conveys the tool's purpose clearly, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'search' tool.

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 clear context: use it to discover reference sites based on the user's building intent, and then pass the resulting domains to critique. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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