agent_discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers important behavioral context: the data is public, unencrypted, and returned content is untrusted third-party data with a prompt-injection warning. It omits operational traits like pagination, rate limits, or result ordering.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action before the trust caveats, and no filler. The security warning is separated cleanly from the functional description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the full schema coverage handles parameters. What remains is a solid safety framing; only operational details (pagination, rate limits) are absent, which is acceptable for a search tool.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, query, and capability. The description restates the name/capability search axes but adds no syntax, DID-format, or default/limit detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (relay directory for agents) plus the search axes (name or capability). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like agent_resolve_username and agent_search_capabilities, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase 'by name or capability' implies the supported lookup modes, giving implicit usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing versus related tools such as agent_resolve_username, agent_list_capabilities, or agent_search_capabilities.

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