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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which do not convey the crucial fact that the call is currently a no-op. The description discloses that the gateway acknowledges but stores nothing and puts no capability on the network, a behavioral trait no structured field supplies.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero padding that lead with the purpose and immediately follow with the critical caveat and redirect. It could front-load the warning slightly more, but it is well-sized and efficient.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, that it currently has no effect, and where to go instead. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, so kernelId, capabilities, devices, and signature are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax, format, or constraint details, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 ('Announce capabilities for a kernel') and directly names the sibling it is not ('To publish a capability, use create_capability'). An agent can distinguish it from create_capability without opening either schema, though the surface verb 'announce' is slightly softened by the no-op caveat.

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 explicit when-not guidance ('the gateway currently acknowledges this call but stores nothing') and a concrete alternative with the HTTP route ('use create_capability (POST /api/capabilities)'). This is exactly the routing information an agent needs to avoid a useless call.

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