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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the operation includes current metadata and, importantly, does not authorize spend. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 that packs the core action, scope, and a critical safety qualifier without fluff. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool has only two parameters, and the description covers the main behavioral guardrail and return contents. Since there is no output schema, the mention of endpoint and payment metadata helps fill that gap. It could be richer on response shape or alternative routing, but for this tool's complexity it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It only hints that 'query' is a natural-language need; it does not explain 'limit', its default, or its range. This is minimal compensation for the schema gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it returns the best matching live SqueezeOS capabilities for a natural-language need. It also adds scope by mentioning endpoint and payment metadata and explicitly says no spend is authorized. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like discover_capabilities, but the recommendation framing is distinct enough.

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 conveys when to use it: for a natural-language need where you want matching capabilities without spend authorization. However, it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as discover_capabilities or inspect_capability, nor does it state when not to use it.

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