get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds scope context beyond those hints by explicitly disclaiming two mutation-like behaviors (creating watches, storing preferences), which prevents an agent from misusing it as a setup call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the boundary statement. Only the phrase 'planned price/stock/shipping watches' is slightly compressed, but 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must convey the shape of the response, and it does name the three payload elements (capability availability, stable IDs, planned watches). Adequate for a zero-argument introspection tool, though it could say when in a workflow to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes nothing to interpret; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-scope inspection rather than a filtered lookup.

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 (inspect) and resource (ShopScout capability availability, stable IDs, planned watches), which clearly separates it from the product/offer/shipping siblings. It is slightly vague about what a 'capability' actually is, but the introspection purpose is unambiguous.

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 is implied — this is a discovery/introspection call an agent would make before setting up watches — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to alternatives. The negative clause 'does not create a watch or store client preferences' implies a boundary rather than guidance.

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