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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the default eligibility filtering and that excluded captures can be included for inspection. This helps the agent predict the tool's default behavior without needing to infer it from the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the second sentence adds the most important behavioral nuance about default filtering and excluded captures. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list operation, the description plus schema and annotations cover the core invocation needs: required orgId, optional pagination, excluded-capture inclusion, and transcript inclusion. It does not describe return shape, ordering, or pagination behavior, but those are not essential for a simple list call, especially given the strong schema documentation.

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 75%, and the schema already documents limit, include_excluded, and includeTranscripts, including the important string 'true'/'false' coercion warning. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the one less-documented parameter, orgId, is a required UUID that is self-explanatory. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 verb ('List') and a specific resource ('the organization's Process Landscape captures'), which clearly identifies the entity being retrieved. It also adds a distinguishing behavioral detail—default filtering to captures eligible to seed new process proposals—that separates it from generic capture or process listing tools.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: listing Process Landscape captures, with the default returning only eligible captures and excluded captures available for inspection. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of the top score, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand the intended use.

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