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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool records missing items to the operators' gaps board, that nothing is promised to the user, and gives the return shape for both success and failure. This is strong disclosure for a write/record type tool.

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 dense but clearly structured with WHEN, NOT for, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds meaningful guidance, and the key usage conditions are front-loaded.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, exclusions, side effects, user-facing caution, and the success/failure return shape. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains 'missing' as buildable data gaps and 'could_do' as what Dantes can still do, and the WHEN clause implies 'capabilities_tried' and 'question'. However, 'capabilities_tried' and the expected contents of 'question' are only implicit, not directly mapped.

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 specific action (report the missing pieces after search_capabilities and get_capability) and names exactly what class of missing data is being reported: data column, indicator, history, or composition. It also implicitly differentiates itself from siblings by describing when the other tools have been exhausted.

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 includes an explicit WHEN clause naming the prerequisite tools and condition, and a NOT for clause explaining when not to use it: when a capability exists but refused the input shape. It even warns the agent not to promise that a gap will be built, which is critical behavioral guidance.

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