describe_filter_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar for the description is lower. The description does add real context beyond annotations: the data reflects 'fresh' account state, and the caveat 'Saving support does not imply live or historical support' warns the agent not to over-infer coverage. That caveat is worthwhile but terse and cryptic, so it does not rise to rich behavioral disclosure.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the capability inventory, followed by the parameter hint and the caveat. The nine-item enumeration in the first sentence is long but earns its place because there is no output schema, so the agent has no other way to know what is returned.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the payload, and the enumeration of capabilities, metrics/units, markets, dates, coverage, worker readiness and budgets does that job. Missing only sibling-level routing guidance, which is a modest gap for a single-optional-parameter discovery tool whose annotations already cover the safety 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'table' parameter is already documented with its allowed values (batters, starters, nhl_skaters, nhl_goalies), so the baseline is 3. 'Specify a table for detailed rules' adds only a thin detail-level nuance on top of what the schema already states, not new syntax or format meaning.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource framing ('Discover fresh account capabilities... native rule metrics/units, markets, dates, coverage, worker readiness and budgets') that tells an agent this is a metadata/capability-discovery endpoint rather than a data query tool. However, it never uses the word 'filter' and never distinguishes itself from siblings like describe_resource or describe_filter_capabilities-adjacent tools, so the differentiation is left to the name alone.

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?

'Specify a table for detailed rules' implies a two-tier usage pattern (call bare for an overview, pass a table for per-table rules), which is genuine implied usage guidance. What is missing is any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use relative to alternatives such as describe_resource or validate_filter, and no prerequisites are stated.

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