pangolinfo_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses no backend call, zero cost/local data, that it does not consume downstream tools, that summary mode only gives one-liners, and cites a contract constraint (CONTRACT §9) preventing account endpoints. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a read-only introspection tool.

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?

Labeled sections (Use when / Don't use / Returns / Pair with / Cost) make it scannable and front-loaded. Minor redundancy: 'no backend call, free' is repeated later as 'Cost: 0 points (local data, no backend round-trip)', costing a small amount of tightness.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description enumerates the return shape (version, locale, liveTools[{name, domain, oneLiner, cost}], workflows, tips), and covers cost, side effects, and next-step pairing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both params are enum-documented, so the schema already explains detail modes and clientSource. The description's phrase 'the summary mode here gives one-liners only' adds slight nuance about the detail param but largely restates the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('get the full capability catalog, canonical workflows, and usage tips') and explicitly frames itself as self-introspection, which cleanly separates it from all 20 sibling tools that hit Amazon data. An agent can immediately tell this is the meta/menu tool rather than a data tool.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' triggers (first connection, 'what can you do' questions, SOP planning) and an explicit 'Don't use' clause that routes to tools/list for single-tool detail and forbids using it for account balance. Both the alternative and the exclusion condition are named.

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