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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'FREE' (cost) and does not disclose the read-only nature, response format, or any operational constraints. For a query tool, this is minimal and does not provide meaningful transparency beyond the annotations' absence.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. 'Get SENTINEL facilitator capabilities' immediately states the action and resource. The trailing 'FREE' is a minor addition but does not detract from conciseness.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a reasonable list of content categories, covering the main aspects of facilitator capabilities. It is sufficient for a simple, no-parameter tool, though it could be more explicit about the response format or usage context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides no parameter details. The description compensates by specifying the type of information returned (payment schemes, networks, assets, compliance features), giving users a clear idea of what the tool offers. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'SENTINEL facilitator capabilities', listing the included categories (payment schemes, networks, assets, compliance features). This provides a distinct purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like facilitator_kya, which may focus on KYA rather than 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or mention any sibling tools. It simply states what it does, leaving usage context unaddressed.

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