teneo_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 disclose the informational domains it returns (auth, credits/pricing, field shapes, output shape), which hints at a read-only discovery operation. It does not state that the call is free, side-effect-free, or how large the response is, leaving the safety profile to inference.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the value proposition and ending with the routing cue. Every clause enumerates distinct content the agent will receive; nothing is wasted.

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, no-annotation discovery tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what information it will obtain and when to call it, which is enough to act. It could be slightly stronger by noting the return is static documentation rather than generated content.

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, so there is nothing to mis-document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed to retrieve the capability overview.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and enumerates exactly what the tool covers: auth, pricing (credits), request fields, workflow, use cases, and output shape. This clearly separates it from siblings like teneo_generate_book or teneo_research_niche, which perform work rather than describe capability, though it never says outright that it returns static documentation.

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?

'Call this first if unsure' gives explicit, actionable routing guidance for an agent entering this tool family. It lacks a when-not-to-use clause (e.g., skip it once you know the workflow), so it stops short of the top band.

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