Discover configured provider API functions for Code Mode. Omit query to list names and descriptions. Supply a function name or space-separated keywords to get matching TypeScript declarations. Call this before execute; arguments and results use native provider formats, not the consolidated tool formats.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the two shapes of return value (names/descriptions vs. TypeScript declarations) and the critical caveat that arguments and results use native provider formats rather than the consolidated tool formats. It stops short of describing result ordering, result limits, or no-match 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then modes, then the ordering constraint, then the format warning — no filler. Minor redundancy in 'list names and descriptions' versus 'matching TypeScript declarations', but each sentence carries a distinct instruction.

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 single optional-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, both modes, return shape qualitatively, and the ordering relative to execute. The remaining gap is what 'configured' implies (that results depend on provider configuration/setup) and what happens when a query matches nothing.

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 coverage is 0% — the only structured hint is a '\S' pattern — so the description must carry the meaning, and it does: absent query means list, present query means name or space-separated keyword match. It leaves the matching rule (substring vs. exact vs. token AND/OR) and multi-keyword combination semantics unstated.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 fully prescribed: omit query to enumerate names and descriptions, or supply a function name / space-separated keywords to retrieve matching declarations, and call this before execute. The two query modes are mutually exclusive and explicitly stated; no exclusion cases are missing for a one-parameter discovery tool.

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