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

The description implies a read operation ('Discover') but does not explicitly state side effects, return format, or any behavioral constraints. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and it is insufficient to understand the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence that is well-structured and free of unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a tool description and adheres to a clean format.

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 lacks details about the output, parameter semantics, and usage context. Without an output schema or further explanation, an agent cannot fully understand what results to expect or how to use the tool effectively, especially given the variety of sibling tools.

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 includes 'limit' and 'capability_code' with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their meaning or how they affect the operation. While 'limit' and 'capability_code' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic detail to assist an agent.

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 states the action ('Discover') and the object ('published, permissioned human-origin intelligence assets'), but it is vague about what 'discover' entails (e.g., list, search, or retrieve) and what qualifies as an 'intelligence asset'. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like me_capabilities or me_catalog_human_capabilities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It does not mention any condition or context that would make this tool the preferred choice among the many sibling tools.

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