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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the default eligibility filter behavior, the 'include_excluded' option for inspection, and the note about including transcripts being large (via the includeTranscripts param description). This clearly explains what the tool does and what to expect, exceeding what annotations alone convey.

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, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It adds the key behavioral nuance (default eligibility filter) and the opt-in for excluded captures without any wasted words. This is a model of efficiency.

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 list operation with a readOnlyHint and simple parameters, the description covers the essential context: what is being listed, the default scope, and the option to broaden scope. The schema provides parameter details, annotations cover safety, and there is no output schema to explain. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning pagination or that transcripts are large (that's in the param description), but it's sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 75%, and the description adds context for the main semantic parameter (include_excluded) by explaining 'excluded' refers to captures excluded from Process Landscape analysis, linking to the eligibility concept. The description also clarifies the default behavior regarding eligible captures, which helps interpret the include_excluded parameter and the overall purpose of the limit parameter. However, it doesn't deeply explain each parameter, but the schema itself is fairly descriptive, so the description provides enough added value.

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 states the tool lists the organization's Process Landscape captures, which is specific and distinguishes it from other list tools like listClarityProcesses. It also adds a meaningful default behavior detail (eligibility filtering) that goes beyond a simple listing, separating it from generic list operations.

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool by explaining the default filter (only captures eligible to seed new process proposals) and the option to include excluded captures for inspection. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide appropriately, especially given the sibling tool list includes related get/list tools.

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