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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful context: no ME account or API key required, and x402-enabled clients handle payment. It does not disclose availability details, rate limits, or what 'current availability' means operationally.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence contributes meaningful context. The Human Verify workflow adds value rather than padding, though it could arguably live in the sibling tool's description.

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 provides useful workflow and auth context, but with 5 undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, it is not complete enough for an agent to confidently call the tool with appropriate filters and interpret the response.

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%, yet the description never mentions limit, cursor, capability_code, max_price_cents, or min_reliability. The agent is left without any guidance on how filtering, pagination, or pricing constraints work.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('Discover public ME capabilities and current availability') and a concrete resource. It is more than a tautology, but it does not differentiate from closely named siblings 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 gives concrete routing guidance for the Human Verify flow, explicitly pointing to me_human_verify and me_human_verify_result. However, it does not specify when to prefer me_discover over the other catalog/capability sibling tools.

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