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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'deterministic signed assessment', which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it does not explain what signing entails, what the assessment covers, or what happens to the input. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the tool name and then adds the key qualifiers 'deterministic signed assessment'. It is concise, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 moderate complexity (two required params, output schema present, many siblings), the description is too thin. It does not explain what the assessment evaluates, how 'required' and 'offered' relate to capability negotiation, or when an agent should choose this over capability_verification or preflight. The output schema exists but the description still leaves the tool's purpose ambiguous.

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 the schema already documents the two required parameters ('required' and 'offered'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain what 'required' and 'offered' mean in the context of capability negotiation. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 'Capability Negotiation Preflight; deterministic signed assessment over supplied input' states a specific verb-ish resource ('assessment') and mentions determinism and signing, but it does not explain what a 'capability negotiation preflight' actually does or what the assessment is about. Among siblings like capability_verification, capability_benchmark, and preflight, the description does not distinguish this tool from those alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as capability_verification, capability_benchmark, or preflight. The phrase 'over supplied input' implies it takes input and produces an assessment, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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