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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value by warning that capabilities differ between deployments and citing a concrete gap, but it does not say what the response looks like (matrix? list?) or how gaps are represented, so transparency is good but not rich.

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 sentences, no filler. The scope statement comes first and the decision-relevant caveat second, so an agent gets the gist immediately.

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 zero-required-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description conveys what the result means (which capabilities exist on which deployment) and why it matters before integration planning. It stops short of describing result shape or how to interpret partial matches, which is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'capability' parameter is documented in the schema with an example ("sign-in", "payments"). The description adds no filtering syntax or semantics beyond that, so the schema carries the burden and 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 and scope: a capability-availability matrix across Claspine Atlas, self-hosted engine, and self-hosted Spring Boot. The verb is implicit ("which capabilities exist"), but the resource and comparison axis are precise enough that an agent can distinguish it from sibling doc-lookup tools like search_docs or api_reference.

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?

It gives an explicit usage rule: "Check this before planning any Claspine integration," which tells the agent when to reach for it. It also supplies a concrete divergence example (Atlas lacks sign-in, permissions, push) that motivates the call, though it does not name a specific alternative tool to use for other cases.

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