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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: results are only a shortlist, and finding/saving a capability "does not acquire, execute or grant access to source," clarifying the operation is non-committal.

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 front-loaded sentences with little waste; the core purpose and the non-commitment caveat arrive early. The middle clause ("saving does not acquire, execute or grant access to source") is slightly awkward for a search tool but earns its place by preempting a misunderstanding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe returns more fully; it says "small shortlist" but not the result shape. For a 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage it leaves parameter details and result structure thin, though purpose and next-step guidance are present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining params. It partially compensates by naming "saved or owned," which maps onto two of the three scope enum values, but leaves "library," limit, and query semantics undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ("Search") with a clearly scoped resource ("this account's saved or owned capabilities and bundles"), which helps separate it from a generic catalog. It stops short of naming a sibling like discover_daystruct_capabilities, so the boundary between this and other search/discovery tools must be inferred.

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?

It implies the workflow (search, then "inspect a selected profile before use") and notes the result is a "small shortlist." However, it never states when to choose this over siblings such as discover_daystruct_capabilities or resolve_daystruct_bundle, so usage is only implied.

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