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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'discover', implying a read operation, without stating output format, pagination, side effects, or permissions. It does not even clarify whether it returns a list, a summary, or detailed metadata. This is a significant gap for a discovery tool.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it does not earn its place because it is vague and fails to convey actionable information. It is front-loaded with 'Discover' but the rest adds little value.

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 tool with two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a crowded sibling set, this description is woefully incomplete. It leaves the agent without enough information to call the tool correctly, understand its result, or choose it over alternatives.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter (include_stale, capability_code). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare type/default, so an agent has no idea what these parameters control or how to set them correctly.

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 the verb 'discover' and names 'capabilities' as the resource, but the object 'agent-ready intelligence resource capabilities and execution semantics' is vague and jargon-heavy. It does not clearly specify what the tool returns or how it differs from siblings like me_find_capability or me_catalog_human_capabilities. The purpose is implied but not crisp.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. No alternatives are mentioned, and no conditions or exclusions are given. An agent would have to guess which tool to pick based on the name alone.

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