getCapabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'static', 'keyless', and 'Read it once' which reinforce these traits without contradiction. It also clarifies that it returns docs, not live data, which is additional context beyond annotations. Slight deduction because it doesn't elaborate on output format or pagination, but the output schema presumably covers that.

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 ~120 words, longer than average, but every clause earns its place: purpose, contents, usage timing, trigger questions, disambiguation from siblings, and parameter note. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and then branches into usage. Slight redundancy with 'short rationale' but overall well-structured.

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 tool with a simple read-only purpose, a single parameter, and an output schema (presumably describing the guide structure), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns, when to call it, what not to expect, and how to differentiate from peers. No gaps are evident.

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 a full description of the single `rationale` parameter (with format, length, examples, privacy note). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description confirms 'Takes no parameters beyond a short rationale,' which adds clarity that no other parameters exist. This is above baseline because it explicitly reiterates the parameter surface.

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 defines the tool as returning a static onboarding guide with specific contents (workflows, network name synonyms, call sequences, pitfalls). It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools: 'for the actual list of network slugs use getNetworks, and for coverage totals use getStats.' This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope and sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: 'Read it once at the start of a session before your first query, or when asked...' It lists trigger phrases and also states what the tool does NOT do ('returns onboarding docs, not live market data') and directs to alternatives. This is textbook when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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