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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, any side effects, or required permissions. For a tool that likely queries data, this lack of clarity impacts agent decision-making.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. While brevity is valued, more information is needed to meet the needs of tool selection. It is not wasteful, but it is under-specified.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, and that only one of three parameters is documented in the schema, the description fails to provide a complete picture. The tool's return value or behavior is not described, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 input schema has 3 parameters but only 'name' has a description ('Capability name.'). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, and the optional 'npub' and 'dpop_token' are entirely unexplained, leaving their purpose ambiguous.

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 verb 'explain' and the resource 'capability', and it adds two aspects: 'why it exists' and 'where it lives', which gives a specific purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cypher_authorize_capability_why' which focuses on authorization, and 'cypher_upsert_capability' which is about creation/update.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'cypher_suggest_capability_why' or 'cypher_authorize_capability_why'. There is no mention of prerequisites or disclaimers, leaving the agent without context for proper selection.

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