help

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

"Side-effects: None. Read-only guidance query" restates what readOnlyHint=true already declares, so it earns no extra credit. Beyond that it discloses the nature of the returned content (including refusal notes, which hints at what an agent may find when a request is disallowed), which is modest added value. With annotations and an output schema covering the rest, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three short labeled lines – purpose, side-effects, disambiguation – each earning its place, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and zero params plus readOnlyHint mean little else is required. A minor gap remains: it doesn't say whether the guidance is static boilerplate or reflects current server state, which would affect how often an agent should call it.

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, so per the baseline rule this scores 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description could usefully add.

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 ("Return") and enumerates the concrete payloads: provider contract guidance, workflow rules, capability map, refusal notes. The final line explicitly distinguishes it from sibling system_capabilities, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 disambiguation line gives an explicit when-to-use rule and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it (machine-readable JSON flags). Nothing is left to inference about routing between help and system_capabilities.

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