Check an ASP manifest

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context about discovery correlation and aggregate counters per document/client class without addresses, which goes beyond the annotations. It still does not cover error handling, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core action and summarized fields, followed by default host and discovery semantics. It is mostly efficient, though the final sentence about correlation records and counters is dense and somewhat less directly tied to invocation.

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 one-parameter read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description explains what is read, the manifest path, the default host, and the summary contents. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents the host/URL and default. The description adds that the manifest is read from the origin and restates the default host, but does not add significant semantics beyond the 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 gives a specific verb and resource: reads the ASP manifest at /.well-known/agent-shelter.json and summarises its fields. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as asp_guarded_fetch or probe_diagnostic_echo.

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 implied by the context of checking a host's ASP manifest and the default reference node is stated. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus its siblings, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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