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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: results are scoped to the current connection, include role/permission details, and the include_unavailable parameter can reveal what additional permissions would enable. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states scope, the second states return content, and the third states when to use it. Information is front-loaded and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what is returned: each tool with its one-line purpose, intended role, and consumed permission. Combined with the schema's documented optional parameters and enum categories, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of grouping by 'area' loosely aligns with the category parameter, and the permission-gain framing relates to include_unavailable, but it adds no parameter details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 operation ('list'/'returns') and resource ('capabilities'), and elaborates on content: grouped by area, with each tool's purpose, role, and permission. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list_api_endpoints, but the scoping to 'current connection' and 'tools' makes the 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 an explicit use case: use it when unsure whether a capability exists, framing it as cheaper than guessing tool names. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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