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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds one genuine trait beyond the annotations: that v0/v1 output is 'preserved' (static) while the v2/v3 Wave catalog is 'dynamic'. That distinction is useful but thin relative to the tool's apparent complexity.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; it immediately states the two output modes. The compression comes at some cost to clarity, but nothing is padded.

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-value documentation is not required. Yet the input schema offers six const-variant branches for schema_version/product, and the description only vaguely gestures at 'v0/v1' versus 'v2/v3', leaving an agent uncertain which schema_version value to supply. Adequate but incomplete for the schema's complexity.

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?

With zero counted parameters, the baseline is 4, and schema description coverage is reported at 100%. The description loosely maps its version language (v0/v1 vs v2/v3) onto schema_version variants, adding mild meaning, though it does not name the actual const strings the schema requires.

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 conveys that the tool surfaces a capability catalog and distinguishes two modes ('preserved v0/v1 surface' vs 'dynamic v2/v3 Wave catalog'), which hints at what it returns. However, the phrasing is jargon-heavy and never plainly states it lists all available job capabilities, nor does it differentiate itself from the sibling get_capability (singular). Purpose is inferable but not crisp.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is given. The two version modes are named but the description never tells the agent which to choose or when to prefer this over get_capability. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and title.

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