capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: the report explicitly distinguishes implemented features from unverified/unsupported flows, which tells the agent how to interpret the output. With no output schema, it could have said more about the report's shape or scope, so this is adequate rather than rich.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the payload, with zero filler. The qualifier 'explicitly unverified or unsupported' is doing real work by setting expectations about negative results, not padding.

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-arg, read-only, no-output-schema introspection tool, the description supplies enough to call it and interpret the result. A sentence naming the scope of the report (this server's tools/flows) would close the remaining gap.

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 and the description does not pretend otherwise, so there is nothing to mis-specify. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool; no param meaning is needed.

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 ('Report') and the content of the report: implemented features plus unverified/unsupported flows. The 'capabilities' name is abstract on its own, but the description makes clear this is a self-description/feature-discovery tool, clearly distinct from the account/order/cart siblings. It never explicitly says whose capabilities (this server's), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 on when to call it, no mention of calling it before other tools, and no named alternatives. The only implied usage is 'discovery tool', which the agent must infer from the word 'Report' and the sibling list. Nothing tells the agent what to do with the result.

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