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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description goes beyond that by disclosing what comes back (pricing, assurance tiers, availability), which helps the agent judge result usefulness. It still omits pagination or result-count behavior, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, no filler. The action is front-loaded and the return-payload note follows logically. Every clause carries information.

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 one-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers both what to send and what comes back, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and whether the search domain is global or scoped.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on a single 'query' parameter, the schema already documents the argument. The description adds only the loose hint that queries may be a type name, material, or process, which overlaps almost entirely with the schema's own text. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search capability templates') and narrows the scope with 'by type or keyword'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-neighbors like list_capability_types or pcc_orchestrator_match_capabilities, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrasing ('search ... by type or keyword'), which tells the agent the acceptable lookup modes. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of list_capability_types as the alternative for enumeration, and no prerequisites.

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