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

With annotations covering the read-only/safety profile (readOnlyHint=true), the description adds real value by disclosing the pricing model: $0.005 per request plus $0.0002 per record, capped at $0.50, with a free `economics` block and a dedicated estimate endpoint. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not, however, describe failure modes or auth requirements in detail.

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 first sentence is extremely long with multiple parentheticals and uppercase emphasis, making it hard to parse. The essential purpose is front-loaded, but the pricing and estimate details could be trimmed or relocated. It is information-dense rather than appropriately sized.

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 carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly (definition, sub-capabilities, authorities, providers, cost/economics breakdown). Pricing and estimation paths are also covered. Minor gap: it does not fully describe the meaning of the `context` parameter or edge-case behaviors.

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 schema documents both parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds value by giving concrete input-format examples for `capability` ('payments-card-management' or 'BC-1340'), clarifying the slug-vs-id ambiguity the schema leaves open. The optional `context` parameter's intent is only covered in the schema, not the description.

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 resource and enumerates exactly what comes back: definition, sub-capabilities, external authorities, catalog providers with ratings, and cost. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_capability_edges, which covers the per-tag edges. The core purpose is clear, though the dense run-on sentence somewhat obscures the simple 'retrieve one capability' action.

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 names the alternative (get_capability_edges for per-tag edges with evidence) and notes inclusion in the Understanding and Influence tiers, implying when access is available. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over find_capabilities or get_provider_capabilities, and no stated prerequisites for calling it.

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