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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it needs the read scope, needs no key over REST, planned routes return 501 until shipped, and planned entries carry a want door.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries information about content, planned-entry behavior and auth. Minor deduction for insider jargon ('want door', '501 there') that assumes familiarity with the platform's vocabulary.

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 values need not be explained. The description covers what the listing contains, how planned entries behave, the auth requirement, and the REST key exception — enough for an agent to call it correctly, though it omits how large the listing is or whether it is filtered.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 for a parameterless tool is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: an inventory of everything ShapelessAI can do, live or planned, including REST routes, MCP tools, CLI lines and page links. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling capabilities_want by describing the 'want door' that a planned entry carries, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied (use it to discover what the platform can do and how to reach each capability), and it does explain what happens with planned entries (route answers 501 until it ships). However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus other discovery tools such as tools_list or platforms_list, and no exclusion conditions.

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