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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations by explaining the semantics of returned fields (signatureBankId, signatureIdScan, signatureFaceLiveness) and disclosing that no identity data passes through the API. This privacy/security context is not present in the annotations and helps set correct expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds a crucial caveat. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters, annotations for safety, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool returns, gives examples, and highlights a non-obvious caveat about signature flags. The only minor gap is not specifying the response format, but that is not essential for such a simple capability check.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is nothing to clarify at the parameter level. The description instead clarifies response semantics (capability flags), which is the only useful extra context. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('account capabilities'), and gives concrete examples (BankID, templates, AI assistant). It also clarifies the meaning of the signature-method flags, which distinguishes this tool from other account-related getters in the sibling list.

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 clearly indicates this is for checking enabled features and importantly explains that the signature flags only indicate selectable methods, not actual verification. It implicitly tells an agent that identity verification is not done through this API, providing a clear boundary, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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