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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: selection 'never executes or acquires a capability' (no side-effect on the target resource) and the optional session 'remembers prior delivery and reported results' (stateful continuity). It stops short of explaining what the readOnlyHint=false write actually updates.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core action ('Select relevant capabilities') is front-loaded. The trailing negation clause is dense but earns its place by pre-empting a common misread about side effects.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would need to convey what a caller receives, and it does not. Combined with 0% parameter coverage on an 8-parameter mutation tool (readOnlyHint=false), the definition leaves too much undocumented for an agent to call it reliably.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. Only the 'delivery' enum (progressive/full) is reflected, via prose; 'limit', 'intent', 'bundle_id', 'request_id', 'capabilities', and 'include_repeat' are never addressed, and the description gives no format or interaction guidance for them.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Select') with the resource ('relevant capabilities') and distinguishes two delivery modes ('progressively, or request full delivery'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close-looking siblings such as discover_daystruct_capabilities, prepare_daystruct_capabilities, or resolve_daystruct_bundle, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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?

'progressively, or request full delivery' implies the two modes and when each might apply, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative tool. The 'optional task session' clause hints at multi-step workflows without stating the condition that selects this tool over its siblings.

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