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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the breadth of returned data and the paused/retired readability trait, but says nothing about permissions, auth requirements, rate limits, or cost of access.

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?

Effectively two sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier. The long field enumeration is dense but earns its place by substituting for a missing output schema.

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 no output schema, the description does the work of describing return contents (schemas, price, SLA, verification/repair history, uptime, freshness, ownership, comparable prices, clearing data). Combined with full schema coverage for inputs, an agent has what it needs; only auth/limit context is absent.

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%, so both parameters (capability_id, agent_key) are already documented in the schema. The description's 'by id' phrasing echoes the schema without adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read one capability by id') and enumerates the returned contract data, which separates it from capabilities_list (multiple) and capability_call (invocation). It never names those siblings explicitly, but the singular-by-id framing is clear enough to route correctly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tool is named. The sentence 'Schemas stay readable when calls are paused or retired' does imply a useful usage context (inspect even when not callable) but stops short of guidance.

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