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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds that it returns machine-readable connection, price, and invocation metadata and is free, which goes beyond the annotations and gives useful behavioral context.

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 well-formed sentence that packs a lot of content without repetition. It could be slightly clearer by separating the sources from the return details, but it is efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 names the output metadata (connection, price, invocation), but with three parameters and no schema descriptions or output schema, more is needed: what url/limit mean, how to use them, and whether url is required for a specific source. The tool is not fully documented for an agent to call it without errors.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not describe 'url', 'limit', or even the role of the required 'goal' beyond a loose implication. The tool text explains what the function does but fails to add meaning for the input parameters.

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 a specific verb-resource pair ('capability resolver') and names the sources it searches: AgentResolver-owned capabilities, live MCP directories, and x402 marketplace services. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling list_capabilities by scope and behavior.

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 implies usage: use when you need to resolve capabilities across multiple directories and marketplaces. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer list_capabilities or provide exclusions, leaving the choice to inference.

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