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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses authentication requirements ('No API key'), cost ('No debit'), persistence ('Stores raw body + headers'), error conditions ('Rejects revoked... or expired... 410'), and constraints ('Body limit 1MB'). These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs and are not available from the annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes the core operation, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact (cost, persistence, error behavior, limits). There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple capture tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational aspects: endpoint, auth, cost, storage behavior, rejection cases, and body size limit. It could mention the success response or how to format the body in more detail, but the schema already handles body formatting and the description is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 describes all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the endpoint shape for id, the 1MB cap relevant to body, and clarifying that this capture call has no API key requirement. This goes beyond a simple restatement of schema fields.

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 ('Capture a raw POST'), the exact endpoint ('POST /c/{id}'), and the data stored ('raw body + headers'). It also differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting it is not an install entry and that stored data feeds list_inbox_events, so there is no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 gives strong contextual signals: it is public, requires no API key, and incurs no debit, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative capture or event tools, but the references to list_inbox_events and the schema's id-from-mint_inbox hint make the workflow context clear.

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