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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description reinforces 'Writes nothing'. More usefully, it discloses the return shape — a card when the client can show one, otherwise the text in ``prompt`` — which is the only source of that information since there is no output schema.

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?

Short overall and front-loads the resource, but 'a card where the client shows one, else the text in ``prompt``' is opaque phrasing that requires parsing, and the doubled backticks plus mixed em-dash/colon structure make it harder to scan than necessary.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers selection, safety, and the shape of what comes back. The only gap is that it doesn't clarify the structure or count of the options returned, which an agent may need to act on the result.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing beyond the empty schema is needed and the description doesn't waste space on arguments.

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 specific resource: a menu of capture options available in LociHub, and names the sibling it is not (capture). The phrasing 'what can be captured into LociHub, for the user to pick from' is somewhat abstract and never plainly says 'returns the list of capture options', but an agent can still distinguish this from capture.

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?

Explicitly gives the negative case ('Not for capturing: capture does that') and names the correct alternative with how it relates ('with the pick as its choice'). The selection logic between this tool and capture is unambiguous.

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