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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which indicate a safe, exploratory read operation. The description adds the context of what can be queried (capabilities, tokens) but doesn't disclose additional behavioral details like result format, limitations, or whether it returns instant results. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and examples following. Every word contributes; no fluff or redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what can be searched and gives examples, but it lacks specifics on the response format or the scope of 'capabilities' (e.g., does it include all tools, or only MCP-related?). Given its simplicity, it's adequate but not exhaustive.

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 the query parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds examples of valid query values, which is helpful but not substantial beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action: 'Search OrbitX Agent MCP capabilities and tokens.' It differentiates from siblings by mentioning both capabilities and tokens, but it doesn't name specific sibling tools to distinguish from, though the context of the OrbitX family makes the broad purpose clear.

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 provides query examples, implying usage patterns, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use search versus other OrbitX tools like orbitx__orbitx_get_token or orbitx__orbitx_search. It doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives or what types of queries are best suited.

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