product_get_capabilities

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

The description explicitly states the server is read-only, lists forbidden Reddit actions, and reveals that no such code exists. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation and clearly communicates what the tool cannot do. The promotion-mode gate is also acknowledged, and there is 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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose and is relatively short. However, the second and third paragraphs contain generic read-only and promotional-policy boilerplate that is not specific to this tool, reducing the tightness of the definition.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: read-only behavior is clearly stated, return semantics are presumably covered by the output schema, and parameter needs are absent. The one gap is that the 'promotion-mode gate' is referenced but not defined, requiring knowledge of product_get_profile.

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 there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description has nothing to add beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource ('product capabilities') and an added attribute ('verification status'), and the tool name supplies the retrieval verb. It is clear about what is being returned, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling product_get_* tools beyond mentioning a shared gate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only condition mentioned is a shared 'promotion-mode gate' with product_get_profile, which is a restriction rather than a usage recommendation.

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