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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only and has no payment or provider side effect.' It adds workflow context about execution.next_action and the non-charging handoff step, which goes beyond the annotations. Slightly more detail about the response shape would be nice, but the behavioral profile is well covered.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds decision-relevant guidance: core purpose, continuation rule, fallback route, and side-effect clarification. It is front-loaded with the primary action before branching into workflow details.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decisions: what the tool returns at a conceptual level, what to do when a result matches, what to do when none match, and whether calling it has side effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or route from this tool is missing.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List every replay-verified capability currently executable by MISSING.' It clearly distinguishes this catalog-listing tool from search_verified_capabilities, which is introduced as the natural-language search alternative.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to continue to resolve_capability, when listing alone is acceptable ('unless the caller only asked to inspect the catalog'), and when to switch to search_verified_capabilities. It even clarifies that resolve_capability is non-charging, removing a likely hesitation.

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