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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the search covers both live and planned capabilities, but it does not explain result format, limits, authentication, or how planned results are distinguished from live ones.

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 only two short sentences and is front-loaded with the search action. The second sentence is somewhat vague, but the overall structure is appropriately concise.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what a capability result contains and how live versus planned capabilities are represented. It also lacks enough context to help an agent choose it over sibling tools.

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 single query parameter has 100% schema description coverage, and the schema states 'What data or verdict you need'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 states a search operation on data capabilities, but 'data capability' and 'honestly planned' are abstract, and 'Searches inform build priority' muddies rather than clarifies the tool's purpose. It does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as request_data or the registry lookup 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Searches inform build priority' hints at context but is too vague to route an agent between find_capability and tools like request_data.

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