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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: payment and execution are safety-paused, entries can be LEGACY or BLOCKED and not sellable, and unknown capabilities/networks or unverified budget requests return no eligible matches. This materially changes how an agent should interpret results.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by eligibility and safety caveats. It is efficient, though 'Read-only canonical Autonomy discovery' partly restates the readOnly annotation.

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 read-only discovery tool with no required parameters, the description covers invocation trigger, eligibility behavior, and safety state. It omits output format and per-parameter details, but the absence of an output schema and the availability of annotations keep this acceptable.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies capability/network behavior, budget eligibility, and sellability/status, but it leaves asset and status semantics under-specified and does not explain the relationship between capability and asset. It adds some parameter-level meaning, but not enough to fully offset the sparse schema.

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 opens with 'Find capabilities' plus a concrete domain list (blockchain state, balances, token data) and labels itself 'Read-only canonical Autonomy discovery,' which separates it from the service/status sibling tools. The verb-resource pairing is specific and not a tautology.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('when an agent needs blockchain state, balances, token data or other cataloged infrastructure') and signals what will happen for invalid/unverified inputs. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for initial selection.

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