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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: deterministic compact pages and the guarantee that no ranking, intent inference, or capability selection occurs. This meaningfully shapes an agent's expectations about response ordering and filtering.

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?

The description is two tightly scoped sentences. The first front-loads the primary function and resource, and the second clarifies a key behavioral guarantee without wasted words.

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 a strong input schema, an output schema, and informative annotations, the description needs to cover only the non-obvious behavioral and pagination context, which it does well. The main minor gap is not explicitly routing the agent to pubfi.capabilities.get for single-capability retrieval or to pubfi.route.execute for intent-based selection.

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?

The schema already provides strong descriptions for limit, cursor, and provider_key, covering 75% of parameters with useful constraints and defaults. The description adds supportive context about deterministic paging and static filtering, but it does not clarify the method parameter or explain parameter interplay beyond what the schema states.

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—'Enumerate'—and names the exact resource: the complete installed Registry v2 catalog. It also clarifies the tool's non-semantic, non-selecting behavior, which distinguishes listing from the route-execution sibling.

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 description clearly implies this tool is for deterministic, complete catalog enumeration and explicitly says the server does not rank, infer intent, or choose a capability. However, it does not name alternatives or state explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use conditions relative to the sibling tools.

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