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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the default filters to catalog-covered capabilities, the all=true mode produces a 'real answer rather than a gap' by explaining that most enterprise activity runs on internal systems, and it provides full pricing mechanics with a cap and estimate endpoint. 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and default behavior, but the pricing block is dense and contains the confusing juxtaposition 'Free. Priced per result —'. It conveys necessary cost information but would benefit from tightening and removing the contradictory-sounding opening.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain, default behavior, the all-mode interpretation, and cost implications. It partially describes return content (capability counts per provider) but never details the return shape or pagination behavior, which would make it fully complete.

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 67%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds valuable interpretation for the all parameter ('real answer rather than a gap') and gives model context for q/industry, but it does not add meaning for page, limit, or context beyond the schema. This is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 opens with 'START HERE for what can a business do with these APIs' and then defines the exact resource: a business-capability model with 333 capabilities across 28 industries and per-capability provider counts. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that clearly separates it from detail-lookup siblings like get_capability or get_provider_capabilities.

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 'START HERE' instruction gives clear context: use this tool as the entry point for capability questions, and the all=true guidance explains how to include zero-coverage capabilities. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion/alternative guidance.

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