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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds business context about fixed-price offers and human review of orders, but says little about what this specific capability-discovery call returns or how it behaves.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence. The following sentences add useful commerce context, although the human-review detail is more about order flow than about invoking this tool.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It explains the agent's sales model but leaves the parameters and the actual capability response format undocumented.

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 0% and two optional parameters exist: protocols and adcp_major_version. The description mentions AdCP versioning generally but does not explain how either parameter filters or shapes the capability response.

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 first sentence names a specific resource and version: AdCP 3.2 capability discovery. It clearly differs from transaction siblings like list_products and buy_products, though it could more explicitly state which capabilities are being discovered.

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 implies this is a discovery step before using list_products and buy_products, but it never explicitly says to call this tool first or when not to use it. The named transaction flow provides useful context without fully specifying when this endpoint is appropriate.

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