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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of transparency. It details what is returned (live authority levels, delegated capabilities, governance controls, etc.) and mentions 'live' data, implying no side effects. This adequately discloses behavior beyond the schema.

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 sentence that lists many data elements. While slightly long, it is well-organized and front-loads the main purpose ('Get Crinkl's canonical external agent capability catalog'). Every part adds value, though it could be split for readability.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively explains what the tool returns, including a detailed list of data categories. It fully equips an agent to understand the tool's output without needing additional documentation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no further context is required.

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 states the tool returns 'Crinkl's canonical external agent capability catalog' and enumerates specific data items like authority levels, delegated capabilities, and gateway/MCP details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on agent capabilities, which none of the listed siblings do.

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 use for retrieving agent capabilities but does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context. However, the purpose is clear enough that guidance is not critical.

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