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

Far exceeds the annotations: annotations only say readOnlyHint=false/idempotentHint=false, while the description discloses that the call charges the published resolve price, requires a key with read + requests:write scope, reports chargedCredits and creditsRemaining via data.economics, and that selection never executes or acquires a capability. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to reason about cost and side effects.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded, leading with the core action before billing and session details. The semicolon-chained clauses are efficient, though the packing of billing, scope, session, and non-execution guarantees into one block makes it slightly dense to parse.

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?

Covers the critical cost/safety story well (billing, scopes, non-execution) which suits a charged, non-idempotent call, but with 10 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the individual parameter contracts for limit, intent, bundle_id, request_id, capabilities, include_repeat, and include_considered remain unexplained.

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 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only clarifies three (delivery modes, maxPriceCredits as a cap, session for memory). Limit, intent, bundle_id, request_id, capabilities, include_repeat, and include_considered are left entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 and resource ('select relevant capabilities') and distinguishes the two modes ('progressively, or request full delivery'). It does not, however, name how it differs from close siblings like discover_daystruct_capabilities or prepare_daystruct_capabilities, leaving the agent to 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?

The progressive-vs-full delivery distinction implies a usage context, and maxPriceCredits implies a cost-control context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the ~23 siblings. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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