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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's remaining burden is return behavior — and with no output schema it delivers by enumerating the card's sections, including trust checks and the ak.offer.v1 offer. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., unknown id or slug resolution behavior), which keeps it from a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the returned resource and then lists contents; every clause carries information. The long enumeration makes it slightly list-like rather than scannable, but there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully substitutes by naming the card's contents, and annotations carry the safety profile while the schema fully documents the one parameter. The notable gap is the absence of any guidance on when this tool is the right choice versus evaluate_capability, get_quote, or compare_capabilities.

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?

There is a single required parameter ('capability') whose accepted formats (ak:publisher:name, versioned form, ak:// URI, slug) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific resource (the capability card) and enumerates its contents — purpose, permissions, price, evidence summary, trust checks, links, ak.offer.v1 offer. That is far more concrete than a tautology, but it never distinguishes this tool from siblings like evaluate_capability or compare_capabilities, which also operate on capability entities.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance for the tool itself. The phrase 'use-when and do-not-use-when conditions' refers to fields inside the returned card, not to selecting this tool over its siblings, so an agent gets no routing signal.

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