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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's 'Read-only' merely restates the annotation and adds no new behavioral context such as freshness of capability data or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Every clause carries information about what is returned and when to call it.

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 no-argument read tool with an output schema, the description need not explain return values, and the purpose plus usage trigger are covered. It stops short of identifying which sibling to use instead for adjacent ground-execution tasks.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, and the schema needs no compensation.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (Shenzhen physical human-execution capabilities) owned by Vladimir, which an agent can distinguish from get_sourcing_capabilities or get_supplier_check_capabilities. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

'Use this to discover tasks that require a person on the ground' gives a clear trigger condition, but names no alternatives or exclusions — e.g., get_shenzhen_execution_contact or shenzhen_errand, which sound adjacent. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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