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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the tool's purpose (reporting stage and capability availability) and notes that capabilities are gated, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, or any rate/auth considerations. For a simple status tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded ('Report the current stage...'), followed by a precise clarification of the output content and its authoritative role. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers what it does, what it returns (stage, availability, reasons), and its unique position among siblings. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 trivially 100% (empty object). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none to document. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and no compensation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and identifies the resource: current stage and per-capability availability with stated reasons. It also clarifies its unique role as the authoritative source for gated capabilities, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with resources and task templates.

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 when to use it—whenever an agent needs to check capability availability or gating status—by declaring it the authoritative answer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are obviously different (resource/task templates), so the usage context is clear.

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