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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying results are compact, paginated summaries linked to detailed resources, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Start here'), with no filler or repetition. Every clause contributes either purpose or return-shape context.

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 rich annotations, complete input schema, and output schema, the description adequately orients the agent for a read-only discovery tool. It covers the core purpose and return shape, though it could add a phrase about filtering dimensions like tier, product, or framework for even stronger completeness.

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%, so all eight parameters are already documented. The description only loosely maps to parameters via 'paginated' and 'package ownership' but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, keeping it at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 action ('discover'), a resource ('supported public capabilities'), and adds 'package ownership', which is more specific than the tool name alone. It positions itself as the starting point, which helps distinguish it from deeper inspection tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from search_revogrid_docs or inspect_revogrid_api.

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?

'Start here' gives a clear entry-point context and indicates this tool is for initial discovery of capabilities and ownership. However, it does not state when not to use it or explicitly recommend a sibling tool for alternate needs.

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