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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, yet the description frames this purely as retrieval ('Query... Returns announcements') and never discloses what the non-read-only side effects actually are. No rate limits, timeout, stale-cache, or result-freshness behavior is mentioned, so the description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence mostly restates the first from the return side, so there is a small amount of redundancy but nothing costly.

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-param, all-optional query with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description does cover what comes back ('announcements from operators'). What is missing is the behavioral side: why the server marks it non-read-only, and how result volume/freshness works. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 type, limit, maxPrice, and materials are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates the same filters (type, materials, price range) and omits 'limit' entirely, adding no semantics beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Query the DHT for capabilities' with the matching criteria (type, materials, price range) spelled out. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like search_capabilities, pcc_orchestrator_match_capabilities, or pcc_dht_announce, which an agent must choose between.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent has to guess whether this or search_capabilities / pcc_orchestrator_match_capabilities is the right entry point for capability discovery, and whether pcc_dht_announce is the write-side counterpart.

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