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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and fails to disclose anything beyond the one-line summary: no mention of whether the output is static reference content, whether it triggers any action, or what form the 'showing' takes. Given a zero-parameter meta tool, at minimum the description should signal that it returns descriptive/reference material.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the tool's intent immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the vagueness noted elsewhere.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is the only source of context, and it explains the domain (discovery and contact through agentready.ch) but not what the agent receives or how to act on it. It is adequate as a pointer but thin for the sole documentation of the tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is empty with full coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 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?

The description gestures at an informational/meta tool that explains how agents can discover companies and make contact via agentready.ch, but it never says what the tool actually returns (a static capability listing? documentation text?). The name 'list_directory_capabilities' promises an enumeration, and the description doesn't confirm or enrich that, leaving purpose only implied rather than stated with a clear verb+resource.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling discovery tools (search_companies, search_company_directory, agent_intent_search). An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is a prerequisite orientation call or an alternative to the search tools.

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