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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating that disabled subsystems cannot be activated by callers. This helps the agent understand the limits of the operation beyond just the annotation.

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 two short sentences with no filler, front-loading the main purpose and adding one meaningful behavioral constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 parameterless read-only tool, the description sufficiently explains what the agent will learn: enabled capabilities and the realm. It does not detail the output format, but there is no output schema and the tool is simple enough that the description is reasonably complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The description correctly focuses on the result of the operation rather than inputs.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Discover') and the resource ('this installation's enabled capabilities and realm'), making the tool's function understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling get_my_capabilities by emphasizing installation-level scope, though it does not name or explicitly contrast that sibling.

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 provides clear context that this is an installation-wide capability discovery tool, which implies it is for checking system-level capabilities rather than user-specific ones. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over get_my_capabilities or other capacity-related tools, nor does it state exclusions.

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