List iGrid domains

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'READ role' and adds useful behavioral context about the return content (counts and freshness), going beyond the annotations by specifying what the user will learn from the tool.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and immediately conveys the purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 parameterless read-only list tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the type of data returned (datasets, counts, freshness) and the safety profile via annotations and 'READ role'. Without an output schema, this gives the agent a reasonable expectation of the result.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter space. The description adds no parameter details, but no parameters exist to describe, making the baseline 4 appropriate.

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 uses the verb 'discover' and clearly identifies the resource as 'current iGrid hub datasets' with specific output details (counts and freshness). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like igrid_ingest_csv or igrid_export_csv, which have different purposes.

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 implies a read-only discovery use case, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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