list_software_discovery_models

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 useful framing that these records are discovery-derived output rather than the normalized catalog, but says nothing about default ordering, pagination behavior beyond the limit param, or volume expectations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though the parenthetical costs a few words while adding ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-param list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is minimally adequate. What remains missing is what the distinction from sibling software/discovery list tools is and what an agent should expect in a returned record.

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 100% — all three parameters (limit, approved, publisher) are described in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource are clear (list software discovery models), but the parenthetical 'raw discovery output before/after normalization' muddles rather than sharpens scope — it is unclear whether raw, normalized, or both kinds of records are returned. It also does not name the adjacent tools it must be distinguished from, such as list_software_models or list_discovered_devices.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_software_models, list_software_installs, or list_discovered_devices, all of which sit in the same domain. The reader must infer the use case from the record type alone.

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