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

The description goes beyond merely stating what the map includes by explaining the *nature* of the data—it distinguishes between 'supported execution' and 'human setup,' and guarantees it 'never claims unrestricted functionality.' This is crucial behavioral context that provides necessary epistemic humility to the agent.

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?

The two sentences are front-loaded and highly efficient. The first defines the scope (what), and the second defines the limitations and constraints (how/why), with zero extraneous words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema provided, the description must carry the entire burden of completeness. It successfully defines the content, the granularity of the map (execution vs setup), and the tool's safety/limitation profile.

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?

Since the tool requires no parameters (0), and the schema is 100% covered, the baseline for parameter semantics (4) is appropriate. The description doesn't add semantic value here beyond framing the tool's input nature.

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 is extremely specific, using the verb 'describe' and listing the exact resources covered: 'authorized tenant modules, direct read/write tools, human-review actions and secure app completion paths.' It provides clear boundaries for what constitutes the 'capability map' in this context.

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?

While it does not explicitly name alternative tools, it provides powerful usage guidance by setting behavioral constraints: 'explicitly distinguishes supported execution, human setup and exclusions; never claims unrestricted functionality.' This tells an agent when the tool is valid (when it needs scoping/limit info) and when it is insufficient.

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