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

The GET endpoint and readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false annotations make the safe-read profile unambiguous, so the description doesn't need to repeat it. Beyond that it only restates that results are a list; nothing about pagination behavior, empty results, or whether linked CAPAs include transitive links.

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 short sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by the id provenance and the raw endpoint. Every sentence carries information; the endpoint path is marginally useful but not wasteful.

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 paginated read with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, this covers purpose, id sourcing, and endpoint. The only gap is the meaning of a 'linked CAPA' relationship, which an agent could get wrong without domain context.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by naming the authoritative source of the required id (the `Id` returned by safetychain_search_capas). Pagination parameters are left entirely to the schema, which is fine given their documentation.

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 a CAPA's linked CAPAs'), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_capa and get_capa_activity. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from safetychain_get_capa_linked_records, so an agent must infer the CAPA-vs-record distinction from the names alone.

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 tells the agent where the required id comes from (the GUID `Id` from safetychain_search_capas), which is genuinely useful pre-call guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over safetychain_get_capa_linked_records or what to do if a CAPA has no links.

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