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

'Read-only and idempotent; no side effects' merely restates the annotations and earns no credit. The added value is genuine though: it discloses the return contents (ranked capabilities with live endpoint and x402 payment metadata plus suggested next actions) and error behavior ('returns a structured error'), which annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then use condition, then return/error behavior; the two examples aid selection. The sentence 'Read-only and idempotent; no side effects' is redundant against the annotations and does not earn 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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description does not need to explain result shapes in full, and it correctly focuses on selection guidance plus runtime metadata. It is complete enough for a 2-parameter read-only recommender, missing only sibling disambiguation.

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 100% and both parameters are fully documented in-schema (query length bounds, limit range and default), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return the best-matching SqueezeOS capabilities') plus a clear scenario (agent knows the goal but not which SML API serves it). It does not explicitly name siblings like discover_capabilities or compare_capabilities, so the agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

'Call this when an agent knows the goal ... but not which SML API serves it' is a clear use condition, reinforced by two concrete examples. No explicit when-not or named alternative is provided, so routing against sibling discovery tools is left partly to inference.

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