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

With readOnlyHint=true annotation, the safety profile is already established. The description adds a useful behavioral detail about canonical names being returned, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on caching, pagination limits, or result filtering behavior, which are covered in the schema but not synthesized for the agent.

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 two short sentences, with the primary action first ('Search capabilities') and a focused secondary sentence about using results. Every word serves a purpose; there is no filler 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?

The tool has a rich output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to explain return values. It effectively captures the core workflow (search, then use canonical name in related tools) and is complete for a search tool given the supporting schemas. Minor gap: it does not mention batching behavior via 'queries' vs 'query', but that is available in the schema.

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 93%, so parameters are well-documented in the input schema. The description itself does not add extra meaning to any parameters; its only added value is the canonical name tip, which relates to output rather than input. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools.

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 the tool's function as 'Search capabilities,' which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It also implies a distinction from sibling tools by mentioning that results should be fed into capabilities_get, capabilities_preflight, and capabilities_execute, though it does not explicitly name the alternative to avoid.

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 gives explicit downstream usage guidance: 'copy the exact returned name into capabilities_get, capabilities_preflight, and capabilities_execute.' This tells the agent when to use the search results and how to connect to related tools. It stops short of saying when not to use search or when to prefer another tool, but the context is fairly clear.

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