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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The transparency is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Return'. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly 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?

Given 0 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the key output aspects (capabilities, version, pricing). However, it could briefly clarify what 'fleet-standard' means or that the tool is safe to call without side effects.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema coverage is trivial (100%). According to the rule, baseline is 4. The description adds purpose beyond the empty schema, justifying a 4.

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 'Return fleet-standard capabilities, version, and pricing' clearly states the verb (Return) and the resource (fleet-standard capabilities, version, pricing). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like calculate_tax_credit and get_rule_pack, which deal with different domains.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or contexts. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose, but no direct guidance is given.

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