Find capability

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

The description implies a read-only search operation (search and return) without any mention of modifications or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It is clear that this is a non-destructive query, though it does not explicitly state that it makes no changes to the system.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary action and then provide essential guidance. It avoids redundancy and includes all necessary information without verbose explanations.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to use it correctly. It explains the purpose, the input parameters, and the relationship to sibling tools, making it self-contained for an agent. No critical information 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 provides only parameter names and types without descriptions. The description adds meaning to 'query' by referring to 'natural-language query' and to 'limit' by indicating 'best-matching capabilities' (implying a cap on results), but it does not explain the required nature, the range of limit, or any other constraints. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool's purpose as a search over the server's tool catalog, specifying the input (natural-language query) and output (best-matching capabilities with name and one-line summary). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on discovery rather than schema retrieval or execution.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool (to discover which tool to call) and provides a clear next-step workflow: use describe_capability for schema and call_capability for execution. It also mentions an alternative for enumeration (reading the catalog resource), leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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