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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it only adds that there is no listing fee and a 90% matched-premium split. It does not state whether the operation creates or mutates a listing, what permissions are required, what happens on success/failure, or what is returned.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with the action front-loaded. However, the cryptic 'Patient fleet' framing and parenthetical pricing note make it terse rather than efficiently informative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and all required parameters undocumented, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation or interpretation. It provides only a small amount of economic context and omits parameter semantics, side effects, and return behavior.

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?

All three required parameters (model, units, delay_discount_bps) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain their meaning, allowed values, units, or format. The mention of 'delay' and 'matched premiums' does not disambiguate delay_discount_bps or model.

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 names an action ('list') and a resource ('delay capacity'), but 'Patient fleet' and 'delay capacity' are unexplained domain terms, and it does not distinguish this operation from siblings like capacity_quote or capacity_issue. It is more than a tautology, but not clear enough for an agent to know exactly what is being listed or offered.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus capacity_envelope, capacity_exercise, capacity_issue, capacity_pack, or capacity_quote. The parenthetical fee information does not provide selection guidance or prerequisites.

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