Read public capabilities

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

Annotations already establish read-only, closed-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: no credentials, no network requests, no upstream model tokens, and no service-health check, which helps the agent understand cost and side-effect boundaries.

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 two clear sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core capability and then immediately clarifies the static, non-health-checking nature.

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 static help tool with no output schema, the description provides enough behavioral context to call it correctly. It could optionally state what kind of descriptions are returned, but nothing essential is missing.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that no parameters are accepted, which is consistent with the empty 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: reading local capability and cost-boundary descriptions, with the explicit qualifier that it is static help. It distinguishes itself from dynamic or service-dependent tools by saying it does not check service health, though it does not directly name the sibling tools.

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 appropriate use by emphasizing static, local, credential-free, and network-free behavior, and it excludes health-checking. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over list_models or other siblings.

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