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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'find' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or the structure of the return value. This is insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action of finding capabilities. The alias note adds useful context without unnecessary verbosity, making it well-structured.

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's simplicity, the description provides a basic understanding but omits important details like output format, filtering behavior, and what constitutes 'compatible.' It is not fully complete for an agent to use without additional assumptions.

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 lists two parameters (limit and capability_code) with types and a default, so coverage is high. The description does not add any additional meaning or explanation for these parameters, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 states the tool finds compatible verified human capability supply and identifies itself as an alias for the human capability catalog, making its purpose understandable. However, it does not fully clarify what 'compatible' means in context, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 only notes it is an alias for the catalog, giving no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over other sibling tools like me_capabilities or me_catalog_human_capabilities. It lacks clear usage context or alternatives.

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