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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that this is a read operation, such as error behavior for unknown IDs or whether the result is cached.

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 with no wasted words and the lookup key is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity leaves usage and parameter context underdeveloped.

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?

For a simple read-by-ID tool with an output schema and rich annotations, this is minimally adequate. However, it omits when to choose it over sibling lookup tools and does not clarify the canonical ID source, which leaves a meaningful gap for an agent selecting among get_capability, list_capabilities, and match_capability_to_intent.

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. It does add the phrase 'canonical capability ID,' but it does not explain where those canonical IDs come from or how they differ from other identifiers; the schema enum itself supplies the concrete allowed values.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read a capability') and specifies the lookup key ('by canonical capability ID'). It is clear enough to distinguish from list_capabilities, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other single-resource getters like get_product or get_catalogue.

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 list_capabilities, match_capability_to_intent, or the other get_* tools. The retrieval-by-ID context is implied only by the phrase 'by canonical capability ID'.

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