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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description need not cover safety. It does add genuinely useful behavior: it returns relevant summaries plus a complete bestContract 'when it fits', and signals the detailRequired escalation path, which is context not available in structured fields.

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 dense sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the workflow guidance. Slightly terse in its use of internal jargon (bestContract, detailRequired) but every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description complements both by describing the bestContract/detailRequired flow and the correct follow-up call; only the relationship to non-described siblings like capability_query is left implicit.

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 100%, including the enum semantics for 'operation' (filter dispatch, not effect) and limit bounds, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about query/limit/operation semantics, which is the expected baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Search) and resource (the Enhance capability catalogue) with a clear scope ('for a specific likely action'). It explicitly names the sibling it is not — capability_describe — so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow rule: invoke directly from the returned bestContract, and fall back to capability_describe only when detailRequired is returned or a different match is needed. Clear selection context, though it says nothing about when to prefer the other catalogue siblings (capability_query, capability_mutate, capability_catalogue).

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