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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and mostly succeeds: it says this is a pre-payment manifest lookup, explicitly says it is not for executing the scan, and details the return contents. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or free, nor does it mention auth/rate limits, which is a minor gap.

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 uses three labeled sections ('WHEN', 'NOT for', 'Returns') that front-load the most important information. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is wasted or redundant with the schema.

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-parameter manifest getter with no output schema, it covers when to call, what not to do, and what will be returned. It is slightly incomplete on operational details such as whether the call itself costs or requires special access, though the pre-payment framing and endpoint-specific price hint mitigate this.

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 only says id is a required string, while the description adds that it is a capability id and frames it as the lookup key for schema, price, and when-to-use. It does not specify the id's format or source, but for a single simple identifier this is sufficient.

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?

Description opens with 'WHEN: Use when you already have a capability id and need schema, price, and when-to-use before paying,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and purpose. It also disambiguates from execution via 'NOT for: Do not use to execute the scan,' distinguishing it from invoke_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?

It provides an explicit trigger condition ('already have a capability id ... before paying') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not use to execute the scan'). It does not name sibling tools like invoke_capability or search_capabilities directly, so the alternative routing is clear but slightly less explicit than it could be.

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