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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a one-time discovery call for carrier-aware hosts and returns a manifest grouped by transport. It does not detail manifest fields or response structure, keeping it short of 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?

The description is three tight sentences: purpose first, caller/usage second, return shape third. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition or filler.

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-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, caller context, and high-level return shape. It stops short of describing manifest fields or exact grouping structure, which would help an agent parse the result without the output schema.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameter meaning. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter guidance.

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 names a specific action (discover which mosadd tools are available), a specific resource (tool capabilities), and the key data returned (transport requirements: any | radio | network). It clearly distinguishes this meta-discovery tool from the dozens of sibling action-oriented comms tools.

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?

It explicitly states the intended caller and condition: 'Carrier-aware hosts (e.g. off-grid radio devices) call this once to gate the tool list to what the current carrier supports.' This gives strong when-to-use guidance, though it does not state when not to call it or name alternatives.

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