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

Annotations already declare mutation, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: it states the return is an existing durable request ID/status URL and explicitly bounds the tool to economic intent with no payment or spend.

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 short and front-loads the main action before the return and boundary clauses. It is efficient, though the opening remains somewhat cryptic about whether the primary behavior is lookup or creation.

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 complex tool with nested input objects and no output schema, the description omits prerequisites, side effects, parameter mapping, and detailed return behavior. It gives the economic boundary and return shape but not enough context for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 nested parameters. The description gestures at budget, frequency, freshness, and return path, but leaves required task, client identity, inputs, output, urgency, and capability_id unmapped, so it only partially compensates for the schema 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?

The description states a clear dual purpose: find a supported outcome or capture an unmet capability request. It names the resource and the economic scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like find_capability or preflight_capability.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing. The description implies use when a supported outcome exists or an unmet request needs capturing, but it never mentions when to prefer siblings such as find_capability, preflight_capability, or get_request_status.

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