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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists content (pricing, performance, rights) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. 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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks substance beyond the basic purpose. It is not front-loaded with critical details like filtering or result structure, and every word is not earning 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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'machine-addressable' means, how to filter by capability_code, what the response format is, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 two parameters (limit, capability_code) with zero schema description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to use them. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 specifies a verb ('Discover') and a resource ('active, machine-addressable human capability offers') with relevant attributes (pricing, performance, rights). This is clear, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like me_capabilities or me_find_capability, so it misses the top score.

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 alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of specific conditions. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate use from the name and sibling context.

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