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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that the call yields a five-way classification, but the terms 'certified core' and 'registered engine' are never defined, and with no output schema the agent gets no sense of result shape or behavior on an unknown/invalid capabilityId.

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 compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. The trailing five-item enumeration is information-dense jargon, but it is the substantive content rather than padding.

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 one-param read tool with annotations covering safety, the essential shape is present and no output schema is needed to describe returns. However, the five classification labels are left undefined and there is no indication of where capabilityId values come from, both of which an agent needs to call this correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 0% – capabilityId carries no description, constraints, or example in the schema. The description says only 'canonical capability ID', repeating the name without explaining the format, where to obtain a valid ID, or what happens on a miss; it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check one ResearchPilot capability by canonical ID, and it names the classification outcome (discussion/planning, direct execution, certified core, registered engine, specialist handoff). This is far more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling researchpilot_capabilities, leaving ambiguity about which one to call.

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: consult this when you need a routing verdict for a single capability ID rather than a catalog. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of researchpilot_capabilities for enumeration or researchpilot_prepare_specialist_execution for the follow-on action, and no stated prerequisite that the ID must come from the capabilities listing.

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