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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context: the result set may include one-shot readiness facts and job_async descriptors may carry a deferredProcessing pricing modifier. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what it returns when called with no arguments, or whether results are paginated or bounded.

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 short, front-loaded with the core operation, and avoids filler. The second sentence packs useful but dense jargon about readiness facts and deferredProcessing; it earns its place but reads as slightly cryptic rather than cleanly explanatory.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure is covered elsewhere, and the tool has zero required parameters, making a no-argument call feasible. Still, the description does not explain when to prefer this over sibling capability tools or how to constrain a query, so an agent must guess at effective usage.

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%, and the description does not explain what key or query mean. 'Find' and 'describe' weakly imply query searches and key selects a specific capability, but this is left to inference rather than stated, and there is no guidance on combining or defaulting the parameters.

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 the action family explicitly: 'List, find, or describe capabilities.' The resource is clear and the verbs distinguish read-ish discovery from other operations. It does not explicitly contrast with capability-related siblings like resolve_capability or estimate_capability, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus capabilities-adjacent siblings such as resolve_capability, estimate_capability, or quote_capability. There is also no explanation of how key or query should be used to switch between listing, finding, and describing.

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