Get one capability

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

Annotations only declare it is a safe, idempotent read; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing default output size (~1-2k tokens), per-section token costs, the ~7k cost of requesting everything, and the cheaper resource alternative. This is exactly the cost/limit context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with what is returned and the default before the cost breakdown. Every clause about token cost or the resource alternative earns its place, though the single packed paragraph is heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description covers defaults, cost tradeoffs, filtering, and an alternative access path. For a 3-parameter read tool this leaves no meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it quantifies each `include` section's token cost and explains that `persona` only applies when `activities` is included. That materially helps an agent choose values rather than just knowing the types.

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+resource: fetches one capability's content, and makes the section-selectable behavior explicit. An agent can immediately tell this is a targeted single-capability retrieval rather than a list or search.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance (default sections, per-section cost) and an explicit when-not/alternative: prefer the capability resource for the full document. The `persona` filter condition is also stated. Nothing is left to inference.

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