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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing what the output contains (purpose, constraints, scopes, meters, price), which is essential given the absence of an output schema. It also frames the tool as a pre-check before assuming capabilities exist, offering behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is long but well-structured: it front-loads the use case, lists illustrative examples, then describes the return, and ends with a clear exclusion. Every sentence contributes to guiding the agent, though the long list of examples could be condensed. It earns a 4 for good organization and purpose-packed content.

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 output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does thoroughly: what each capability entry includes and how to interpret it. It also covers the family filter implicitly through schema and provides clear usage boundaries. The description is complete for the tool's complexity and lack of output schema.

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 the only parameter 'family' is clearly documented in the schema. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but with full schema coverage the baseline is 3. No additional meaning is added, but none is needed.

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 clearly states the tool 'Returns every public capability' and specifies exactly what that includes (purpose, when to choose, what it won't do, scopes, meters, price). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming trustycap_list_launch_kits as the alternative for choosing a whole stack, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit 'When to use' guidance with concrete examples (files, records, background work, webhooks, etc.), states 'Call this before assuming a capability exists,' and provides a clear exclusion: 'Do not use it to choose a whole stack: call trustycap_list_launch_kits.' This fully covers when and when not to use.

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