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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does meaningful work: it discloses that the data is public, current, and served from a specific endpoint, and it names the included sections. The word 'Return' implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly address side effects, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, endpoint, and contents without wasted words. Every phrase adds information.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description is nearly complete: endpoint, scope, and content categories are all present. It does not specify the exact response format or error cases, but the low complexity makes those omissions minor.

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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not needed; the schema already covers everything (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies a precise resource: the public capability contract served at /api/capabilities. It also enumerates the main content areas (active protocol, evidence, security boundaries), which clearly separates it from pricing and readiness-scan siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need the current public capability contract. The description does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to get_machine_pricing or scan_ai_web_readiness, but the endpoint and content scope make the intended context reasonably clear.

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