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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds content scope ('explicit qualifications' and the capability categories), but does not address locale-dependent behavior or return formatting. This is comparable to the high-calibration example, where content scope earns a 3 given strong annotations.

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 description is a single, well-formed sentence with no wasted words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the content scope is enumerated compactly. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter, no required parameters, an output schema for return values, and annotations covering safety. The description together with the schema and annotations provides all essential information for an agent to invoke it correctly. Nothing critical is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the locale parameter, but it does not mention it at all. Although the parameter name and enum values make the locale self-explanatory, the description still fails to provide any additional meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 verb 'List' and a clear resource, the DigitalPublic capability matrix, and enumerates the categories included (read, preparation, supervised-write, approval, plan, module). It is distinct enough from sibling tools like get_security_profile or get_data_processing_profile, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and description: if an agent needs the capability matrix, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusion of alternatives, or differentiation from the many sibling get_ tools.

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