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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's added burden is lower. It does contribute real behavioral context ('with live numbers where measured'), signaling that some values are measured/current rather than static, but says nothing about scope limits, caching, or freshness guarantees.

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 tight sentences: the scope/kinds are front-loaded and the actionable directive ('Call before request') closes it. No filler, though the parenthetical list is dense and the term 'ce-net' is left unexplained.

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 must convey the shape of the return, and it does reasonably well by naming the request kinds and the presence of live numbers. An agent knows it will get capability info per kind, though the exact structure and units of those numbers remain unspecified.

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, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free (capabilities are returned for all request kinds at once), which matches the empty schema and adds no misleading param expectations.

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 concrete capability-discovery resource ('what the ce-net network can provide today per kind of request') and enumerates the request kinds it covers. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'request' by framing itself as the informational counterpart, though it never names 'request' as a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Call before request' gives an explicit trigger condition that routes the agent to this tool ahead of the mutation-style sibling. There is no when-not guidance or mention of other informational siblings (e.g., tools_search, apps_search), but the core usage rule is unambiguous.

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