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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output composition, the input format (slug or BC id) with examples, states it is 'Free,' and implicitly scopes out per-tag evidence by deferring that to get_capability_edges. It does not discuss error behavior or return structure beyond the listed components, but for a simple get-by-id tool this is substantial.

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 essential: the first defines the output and scope, the second gives accepted input formats with examples, and the third routes to a sibling for a specific related need. The information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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 adequately enumerates the response components and provides input examples and a sibling pointer. It does not specify how multiple providers are ordered or whether results include provider names only, but the listed components are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the high-level result. Given the tool's single-capability scope, this is a solid description.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete example values for the 'capability' parameter ('payments-card-management' or 'BC-1340'), reinforcing the schema's 'Slug or BC id' with usable formats. It adds no extra meaning for 'context,' but the schema already describes that parameter fully.

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 names a specific verb ('get') and resource ('one business capability') and enumerates exactly what is returned: definition, sub-capabilities, external authorities, and catalog providers with ratings. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_capability_edges by stating that per-tag edges with evidence live there, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for a single capability lookup and explicitly routes the user to get_capability_edges for per-tag edges with evidence. It does not, however, contrast with other likely siblings like find_capabilities or get_provider_business_capabilities, so the guidance is clear for one alternative but not exhaustive.

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