discover_tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about being a fallback category search but does not detail rate limits, pagination, or other behavioral aspects. With good annotations, the description provides moderate additional value.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that includes the tool name, usage context, and example categories. Every word is informative, and the structure is front-loaded with the key purpose. No fluff.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains when to use it and what to input. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., list of tool names or descriptions). This omission reduces completeness for an agent that needs to know the output format.

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 single parameter 'intent' has a clear description in the schema (search intent/category with examples). The tool description reinforces this by listing example categories. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds extra context beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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 states it is a fallback tool for when other tools don't work and allows category-based search for specialized legal tools (80+ categories). While it clearly indicates the tool's purpose, it could be more specific about the output (e.g., list of tool names). It differentiates from siblings by being a meta-discovery 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 explicitly says '위 도구로 안 되는 경우' (when the above tool doesn't work), providing a clear condition for use. It also lists example categories, guiding the user on what to input. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context implies using specific sibling tools when applicable.

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