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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does the important part: it discloses the data provenance (two named CSVs), that the set is curated/L0 reference data, and that no supplier entities are returned. It does not discuss result volume or whether the dictionary is static versus refreshed, which keeps it from a 5.

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, zero filler. The usage trigger leads, the identity/provenance and the negative disambiguation follow — exactly the order an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what comes back, and it does at the field-category level (ids, category names, tiers, equipment specs). A hint about row shape or default-90 behavior (only in the schema) would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so all four filters (limit, category_id, capability_id, equipment_type) are already documented with examples and ranges. The description mentions the kinds of values returned but adds no filtering semantics or precedence rules beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource precisely: a curated L0 dictionary built from grid_capabilities.csv and equipment_types.csv that yields capability/process ids, category names, tiers and equipment specs. It also explicitly rules out the most likely misreading ("it is not a supplier list"), which separates it from search_suppliers and search_works.

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?

"Use when the user needs valid capability/process ids... before searching suppliers or works" gives an explicit trigger and even an ordering relative to the search siblings. It stops short of naming the alternatives by name or stating when not to call it, so it falls just under a full 5.

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