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

Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive annotations, the description explains that it queries live vocabulary and registered offerings, returns the declaring vertical and effect constraints such as proposal-only or human-gate requirements, and surfaces capability_tokens for mandate scope.capability. It also discloses search-only boundaries and no-match behavior, which is substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the primary use case and then adds important constraints, fallback behavior, and return-value context. It is dense and mostly earns its length, though a few sentences could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate every return field, but it still explains the key return facets: offerings, their declaring vertical, effect constraints, and capability_tokens. It also covers search-only limits and the no-match case, leaving no material gap for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents the two parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning about capability vocabulary and vertical selection, but it does not add syntax or format details for the `need` and `vertical` parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: it queries the Cape Agent Exchange's live service vocabulary and registered partner offerings for a needed business service, specialist, consultant, AI agent, or capability. It also clearly distinguishes this as a search-only tool, so an agent can understand its scope without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this whenever the user needs a business service...') and clarifies a common misconception by saying not to assume the exchange is M&A-only. It also states what the tool cannot do — contact a partner, request a quote, or start an engagement — and advises saying so plainly if nothing matches, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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