scan_for_peer_beacons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing exactly which endpoints are fetched and that only live beacons are reported, which tells the agent what to expect from an open-world network scan.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that conveys the core idea early, but parenthetical marketing ('Free Instant Tool') and the long path list pad it out. Every element is factual, yet the packaging is denser than needed.

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?

With no output schema, the description does enough by saying it 'reports all live agent beacons discovered' alongside the annotated safety profile. The main residual gap is the shape of the report and behavior on unreachable domains, but for a read-only scan this is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the 'up to 8' parallel limit. The description adds conceptual meaning to what is being scanned but does not clarify precedence or interaction between the singular domain_or_url and the plural domains_or_urls, so it lands at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (probes) and a concrete resource (well-known agent beacon manifests), then enumerates the exact paths inspected (agent-card.json, agent.json, mcp.json, llms.txt, robots.txt). This clearly separates it from siblings like forge_peer_beacon_kit (which creates kits) or check_ghost_beacon_status (which checks a single known beacon).

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?

Usage is only implied — the phrase 'Free Instant Tool' and 'Radar Scanner' hint at a cheap discovery pass, but the description never states when to reach for this versus check_ghost_beacon_status or run_domain_and_endpoint_health_audit, nor any preconditions or limits on use. No exclusions are given.

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