get_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing beyond the bare action: no statement that it is a safe read, no failure behavior for an unknown or unconfigured broker_id, no auth or rate-limit context. A reader can infer read-only from "Get", but nothing about errors or scoping is stated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the constraint "one configured broker" is placed where it matters. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity leaves gaps addressed under other dimensions.

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 explained, but nothing else fills the gap: no annotations, an undocumented required parameter, and no guidance on sourcing broker_id. For a lookup tool in a brokerage domain where identifier provenance matters, this is thin.

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?

One parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes only a type and required flag. The description says "one configured broker", not which identifier format is expected or that broker_id comes from list_brokers, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

A specific verb ("Get") and resource ("capabilities of one configured broker") that clearly reads as a single-broker detail lookup, distinguishing it from the list_* siblings. It stops short of 5 because "capabilities" is never defined (order types? asset classes? feature flags?), leaving the agent to guess what comes back.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as list_brokers, get_policy, or get_portfolio_summary, and no prerequisite noted. The only implicit hint is "configured broker", which suggests a broker_id obtained elsewhere, but that is inference, not guidance.

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