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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds beyond that by disclosing that it returns only fixed known services and does not verify live availability, search the web, execute work, or grant permissions. This provides behavioral context that annotations do not convey.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The primary purpose and key differentiators are front-loaded, and the exclusions are listed succinctly. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is mostly complete: it specifies input, return content, and behavioral limits. The main gap is the lack of guidance on how this tool differs from resolve_capability and the undocumented limit parameter, but the core calling context is clear enough.

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 has descriptions for query only (50% coverage). The description adds meaning to query by specifying 'short task description or keyword', which is more specific than the schema's generic 'nonblank query'. However, the limit parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description, leaving its purpose and constraints undocumented. With partial coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Find' and resource 'maintained Wever capabilities', and specifies the input as a short task description or keyword. It also lists what it returns (connection details, contracts, limits, access steps) and what it does not do (execute work, grant permissions, search web, verify availability), making its purpose unambiguous even against siblings like resolve_capability.

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?

Description implies when to use: when you need to search for capabilities without executing or granting permissions. It provides clear context by stating exclusions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools like resolve_capability, which appears to handle a specific capability resolution rather than broad search.

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