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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well for the safety profile: it explicitly states no provider is executed, so the agent knows there are no side effects. It also names what comes back (evidence, operational status, ranking signals), but omits auth requirements or rate-limit behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the key behavioral constraint (no execution) and return shape. No 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?

An output schema exists and is rich, so return values need not be spelled out despite the brief mention. For a read-only discovery tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical non-execution guarantee and purpose; only routing guidance versus siblings is thin.

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 coverage is 100%, so both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that the query is natural-language; it adds no syntax, format, or ranking-mechanic detail beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 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?

The description pairs specific verbs (discover, rank) with a specific resource (machine-accessible capabilities) and scopes input to a natural-language request. It differentiates itself from execute_capability via 'without executing a provider', though the relationship to compare_capabilities is left implicit.

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 rather than stated: the 'without executing a provider' clause suggests this is the pre-execution discovery step, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (compare_capabilities, execute_capability) is given.

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