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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that staged paid families are not callable and that only actually exposed capabilities are listed, which is honest and useful. It does not mention a read-only guarantee or error behavior, but the listing semantics are reasonably clear from the verb choice.

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 entire description is a single sentence with the key action front-loaded. Every phrase adds meaning, especially the caveat about staged paid families, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 server introspection tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is listed and the one critical caveat about staged families. It does not describe the exact response shape, but with no output schema and a simple 'list capabilities' intent, that is a minor 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively complete, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter-specific text, but this is acceptable for a parameterless tool; baseline 4 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('capabilities actually exposed by this GhostKey MCP server'). It also draws a clear boundary by saying staged paid families are identified but not presented as callable, which distinguishes it from the sibling 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?

The description implies this is a discovery/introspection tool rather than an operational one, but it never names siblings or states when to use this tool instead of ghostkey_policy, ghostkey_quote, or ghostkey_status. Usage context is present only by implication.

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