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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent) and closed-world scope. The description adds valuable behavioral details: truthful readiness (inquiry_available vs fulfillment_available), no credentials required, and acceptance of unlisted needs. These go beyond annotations, though return format specifics are absent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key details. Every sentence contributes useful information without waste.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: what is listed, readiness flags, no credentials, and openness to unlisted needs. It could explicitly describe the return structure (e.g., a list of services with statuses), but the current information is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameter semantics, as there are none to clarify.

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 clearly states the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'human capabilities', and adds specificity with '20 canonical services plus aliases' and readiness flags. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like request_human_capability, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage by saying 'capabilities you can inquire about' and 'Unlisted needs are welcome too,' giving some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., request_human_capability) or any prerequisites beyond 'No credentials needed.'

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