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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds further behavioral context: it states that the tool is free, gives a price estimate endpoint, and clarifies that per-tag edges are handled by a separate priced tool. This goes beyond the annotation and informs cost-aware usage. No contradiction with the read-only hint.

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 core purpose and input examples, then adds pricing details and alternative-tool guidance. While the pricing sentence is a bit long, each part serves a purpose (cost awareness and routing). The structure is clear, with the most critical information first.

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?

The description covers output content, input identifier format, pricing, and directs to the right sibling for edge details. It lacks an explicit return schema format, but given there is no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly and know what to expect.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds concrete examples for the capability parameter ('payments-card-management' or 'BC-1340'), clarifying the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'Slug or BC id.' It adds little for the context parameter, but the schema already covers it.

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 exactly what the tool returns: 'One business capability: its definition, its sub-capabilities, the external authorities it cites, and WHICH catalog providers reach it with their ratings.' It also clearly specifies the input forms (slug or BC id) and distinguishes from the sibling get_capability_edges, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs.

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 explicitly directs the agent to get_capability_edges for per-tag edges with evidence, providing an alternative for a subset of functionality. It also mentions pricing and the estimate endpoint, giving some context on when to use it. However, it does not discuss when to choose this over other capability-related tools like find_capabilities, leaving some ambiguity.

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