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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope (one candidate) and the content retrieved (Method, conditions, failure boundaries, evidence summary), which provides some behavioral context but does not disclose additional traits like response format or potential errors. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is largely complete. It states what is retrieved (Method, conditions, failure boundaries, evidence summary), the source of the id, and the annotations cover safety. It does not address edge cases like invalid ids or empty results, but for this straightforward use case, the description provides sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It indicates that the 'id' parameter is the identifier of a candidate returned by search_capabilities, which gives essential context about the parameter's origin. However, it does not explain the format or constraints beyond the schema's pattern, nor does it mention that the id is unique per candidate. This is partial compensation but not exhaustive.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve the full bounded Method, conditions, failure boundaries and evidence summary for one candidate returned by search_capabilities.' It uses a specific verb (retrieve), specifies the resource (one candidate), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_capabilities by clarifying it operates on a single returned candidate. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context by indicating the tool is used for a single candidate that comes from search_capabilities, implying a two-step workflow (search first, then get details). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with other siblings like agent_gateway_contract, but the intended usage is clear enough. It lacks explicit exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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