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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden but discloses nothing about whether the call is read-only, what the result shape is, whether it is cached/static, or its size. 'Canonical' hints at an authoritative static list but is not spelled out.

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 efficient sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than maximally useful — the brevity comes at the cost of information rather than from tight writing.

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 and no annotations, the description should at minimum describe what the taxonomy looks like or how it differs from resolve_capabilities. Neither gap is addressed.

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, which is the correct baseline 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side.

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 verb (Get) and a resource (ClawdMarket capability taxonomy), so the broad intent is clear. However, 'canonical capability taxonomy' is vague about what is actually returned, and the sibling resolve_capabilities creates ambiguity about which tool fetches the taxonomy versus resolves capabilities.

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?

No indication of when to use this instead of resolve_capabilities or browse_tasks. The agent is left to guess at the distinction.

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