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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two traits not in structured data: no substantive result is returned, and the call is free. It omits auth requirements, whether the check has side effects or reservations, and rate-limit behavior.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; 'Free.' efficiently conveys a cost attribute. Slightly terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally sound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description notes the result is non-substantive. Still missing: what 'readiness' actually verifies, whether the call is purely read-only, and how it relates to the sibling capability tools.

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 the single required parameter capability_id is undocumented anywhere. The description adds no meaning about its format, source, or valid values, so the agent must infer everything from the parameter name.

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 verb 'Check' and resource 'capability readiness' are present, and 'without returning the substantive result' hints at a dry-run flavour. But the phrasing is abstract ('bounded capability readiness') and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_capability or aios_status, so an agent cannot tell exactly what it does versus them.

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?

Nothing states when to call this instead of get_capability or before a real invocation; the 'preflight' framing only implies a pre-check. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternative.

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