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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the evaluation uses the same method and ak.offer.v1 offer shape as evaluate_capability, which is useful consistency context, but says nothing about cost, side effects, or result semantics beyond what annotations imply.

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 tight sentence with zero redundancy, front-loading the scope constraint (2-5) ahead of the parity reference. Nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is thin. It never explains what the comparison produces or how cost/confidence constraints affect the outcome, and it defers heavily to the sibling for the shape, leaving notable gaps for an agent to fill in.

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 coverage is 71%, below the 80% baseline, so the description should compensate but only partially does. It clarifies the capabilities cardinality (2-5) and that all capabilities share the same context inputs, but the other params (task, model, constraints, expected_runs, baseline_cost_estimate) are not elaborated in the description and remain sparsely documented.

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 (assess), resource (capabilities), and scope (2-5 expected, side by side for the same inputs), and anchors the result shape to the sibling evaluate_capability. An agent can distinguish this as the multi-capability comparison variant, though it leans on the sibling for the actual meaning of the output.

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 implies the trigger condition (comparing multiple capabilities on identical inputs) and hints at the single-capability alternative by referencing evaluate_capability for parity. However, it never explicitly says when to use this vs. evaluate_capability or when to avoid it, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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