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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, so the description does not contradict them. It adds a useful behavioral caveat that provider availability is not proof a task will succeed, going slightly beyond the annotation metadata.

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 compact and front-loaded, using two direct sentences. It avoids unnecessary repetition and states the main purpose and an important caveat without verbosity.

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?

It covers the core purpose and one behavioral caveat, but it leaves gaps: what Daystruct is, what a 'result contract' contains, how query and reference interact, and what the output will look like. Given there is no output schema, a bit more context would be valuable.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions, and the parameter names 'query' and 'reference' are only weakly mapped in the text. The phrase 'inspect a capability ID/handle' implies reference, but the description does not clearly explain the role of query, whether both can be used, or the expected format.

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 clearly states the main action: finding available Daystruct capabilities or inspecting a capability reference and its result contract. It is not a pure tautology, though terms like 'Daystruct capabilities' and 'result contract' are somewhat jargon-heavy and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 helpful usage context with 'before requesting help' and warns that provider availability does not guarantee success. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like daystruct_status or get_context_contract, nor does it explain when not to use it.

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