market_describe_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral clarification: it does not authorize or execute market access. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose details like whether the tool returns a list, a summary, or a status.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying negation is placed second. Every word earns its place.

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, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it does not do. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the shape or content of the returned information, but with no output schema and no parameters, this is a small omission.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, meaning there is nothing for the description to clarify. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('describe') and resource ('governed local capability support'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that validate, preview, read, export, or fetch. It is not a tautology and gives an agent a clear sense of what the tool does. However, it could be slightly more explicit about what 'capability support' encompasses.

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 this is a read-only informational tool, and the sibling names suggest it is the right choice when an agent needs to understand governed local capabilities rather than validate, preview, or execute. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, but the verb 'describe' and the negation 'does not authorize or execute' provide reasonable context.

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