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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention filtering, pagination, ordering, or whether empty terms are included by default, despite the includeEmpty parameter hinting at such behavior. The description only gives example values, leaving the tool's behavior opaque.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the core subject ('Container capacities') and using a compact example to clarify the returned value format. It wastes no words, though it could arguably be slightly more explicit about the return type.

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 simple filtered list tool with full schema descriptions, this description is minimally sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement of what is returned (e.g., a list of strings) and how the includeEmpty parameter affects output, but the schema partially compensates. The absence of an output schema and annotations leaves some gaps, but the tool's simplicity lowers the required completeness.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions ('Optional text filter' and 'If true, include terms with no published products'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 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 identifies the resource ('Container capacities') and provides examples of the values returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like getProductTypes or getSectors. However, it lacks an explicit verb in the description, relying on the 'get' prefix in the name to imply retrieval.

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 implies this tool is for fetching container capacity ranges, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. No usage context or exclusions are provided, requiring the agent to infer from the name and examples.

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