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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: it performs no document processing and is 'normally not billed,' plus the underlying endpoint path, which helps the agent reason about side effects and cost.

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 tight sentences with no filler: what it returns, how the result is consumed, and what it does not do. Purpose and the key downstream instruction are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it covers the workflow, billing, and side-effect questions an agent would have. Nothing required to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying what the slug means in the wider workflow (it is the value passed as configuration_slug to capture tools), adding semantic context the enum alone does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the capturing configurations of a model') and enumerates the returned fields (name, slug, enabled components). This distinguishes it from siblings like dochorizon_list_models and dochorizon_list_prompt_configurations without the agent needing to open the schema.

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?

Explains the downstream workflow clearly: 'Pass a slug as configuration_slug to a capture tool to choose which fields are extracted,' which tells the agent why and when to call it. It also sets a boundary with 'Does not process a document,' though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to use instead.

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