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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the result contents ('factors, hard conflicts, uncertainty') and the ranking policy, which goes beyond the structured fields.

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 with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently lists what every result contains. Every word earns its place.

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 0% parameter coverage, the description carries a heavy burden. It mentions result components and the ranking policy, but it omits how constraints should be structured, what 'representative capabilities' means, and how limit behaves. An agent would likely need to guess at the constraints format.

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. It maps 'functional need' to query and 'structured constraints' to constraints, but it does not explain the constraints object structure, the meaning of limit, or how to express constraints. This leaves significant ambiguity for a nested parameter.

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 action ('Rank representative capabilities') against a clear resource ('a functional need and structured constraints'), which is more specific than the title. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like check_compatibility or compare_capabilities, but the ranking language and 'no-advertising ranking policy' hint at a distinct purpose.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you have a functional need and structured constraints to rank capabilities against. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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