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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the contents of the returned contract (preconditions, recovery, next steps), which tells the agent this is a discovery/reference call rather than an execution call. The 'exact id' requirement is also surfaced. It stops short of 5 because failure behavior for a stale or invalid id is not mentioned.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead, and the payload enumeration plus id source follow compactly. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is nearly self-sufficient for correct invocation. The remaining gap is behavior on an invalid or stale capability id, which the description does not address.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema text ('Exact capability id returned by capability_search or capability_catalogue') is essentially identical to the description's phrasing. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, 3 is appropriate since the schema already does this work and the description adds no new syntax, format, or sourcing detail.

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 a specific verb (Load) and resource (the full contract for one capability id), and enumerates the contract's payload: input schema, example, preconditions, result guidance, recovery, next steps. It names capability_search and capability_catalogue as the tools that produce the id, which orients the agent in the workflow, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with other read siblings like capability_query.

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 clearly states the context of use: this is the follow-up to capability_search or capability_catalogue, taking one of their returned ids. No explicit exclusions or 'do not use when' guidance is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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