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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat those. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the tool 'never returns customer data' and 'requires no credential,' which are useful safety and access insights beyond the 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?

Two concise sentences provide the core purpose and key safety context with no filler. The main capability is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple, zero-required-parameter, read-only introspection tool with an output schema and complete annotation coverage. The description covers the essential context: machine-readable output, no customer data, and no credential requirement, making it fully adequate for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the single optional parameter include_boundaries is fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the machine-readable capabilities and integration boundaries of the BaseCite service.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like basecite_get_ai_context and basecite_get_public_discovery by focusing on service capabilities and boundaries rather than AI context or public discovery data.

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 implies this tool is for introspecting what BaseCite can do and where its boundaries are, and notes that no credential is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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