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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: 'No auth required' clarifies access, and the explanation that planned capabilities are never callable prevents false expectations. This is beyond what the annotations alone convey, so the description earns credit for behavioral disclosure.

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 just two sentences, with no filler. The first sentence uses a colon to efficiently enumerate the directory contents, the second clarifies the two essential behavioral constraints (no auth and planned capabilities). Every phrase adds value, making it concise yet complete.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational knowledge: what the directory includes, how to use it, auth requirements, and the special handling of planned capabilities. The mention of /openapi.json for deeper REST action details fills any potential gap, so the description is fully complete for enabling 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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object and additionalProperties=false. The description mentions no parameter details because none exist, and with 100% schema coverage from the empty schema, there is nothing to add. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete Conductor Relay capability directory'), then enumerates exactly what is included: 'every live, gated, and planned capability' with 'status, audiences, use cases, human/machine documentation links, and public REST actions.' This level of detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_status or get_balance.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover the full platform,' and notes an important boundary condition—'Planned capabilities are returned with status "planned" and are never callable.' It also notes that REST-only actions are listed here and detailed in /openapi.json, which directs the user to complementary resources. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the intent is clear.

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