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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement ('Authenticated via project API key') and the intended behavior of soft-skipping gated insights rather than failing. It implies a read-only fetch, though it does not describe return shape or failure modes in detail.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, and auth requirement. The core purpose is front-loaded and no extraneous detail is included.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, and authentication. It could be slightly richer about the exact response structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter-level semantics to document. The description appropriately names the returned capability examples and freeTrialActive flag, providing useful context even without an input schema.

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: 'Fetch the organization's enabled capabilities ... and freeTrialActive flag.' It names concrete capability examples (TRUE_COVERAGE, API_CONTRACT_COVERAGE), which distinguishes it from sibling coverage tools like get-truecoverage-events and get-truecoverage-event-details.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Call before relying on TrueCoverage / API contract coverage features so playbooks can soft-skip gated insights instead of failing.' It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not conditions, but the triggering context is unambiguous.

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