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

Discloses that the mutation is additive and non-destructive, that repeated calls may increase the demand signal, and that promotion occurs only after verification gates pass, so no immediate creation is promised. These details go beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) and add transparency about side effects and limitations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then covers usage, behavioral notes, and security in a logical order. Each sentence contributes value, and there is no redundancy. It is slightly lengthy (around 100 words) but appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, so it remains 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, trigger conditions, post-request behavior (recording as durable unmet demand), and non-guarantee of immediate creation. It also includes a security warning. Given that there is no output schema and the tool has 3 parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it does not specify return values (which is acceptable without an output schema).

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 schema already provides thorough descriptions for all three parameters: intent, capability, and example_input, including guidance on snake_case, scalar values, and security exclusions. The description reinforces the security warning but adds no new parameter-specific meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds marginal value beyond the schema, meriting a baseline 3.

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?

States a specific action ('Request a capability MISSING cannot currently resolve') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools by giving the exact trigger condition ('when search_verified_capabilities returns capability_not_yet_available or when its verified matches do not satisfy the task'). This is a precise, non-tautological definition.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this when search_verified_capabilities returns capability_not_yet_available or when its verified matches do not satisfy the task.' This is direct guidance. It does not mention alternatives like resolve_capability or list_verified_capabilities, but the condition implies that other tools handle resolvable cases, so the guidance is clear though not exhaustive.

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