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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the tool returns metadata and schemas, which is a read-like operation, but it doesn't disclose any limitations, such as whether invalid IDs cause errors or whether the returned data is verbose. The description is accurate but sparse on behavioral nuances.

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 clear sentence that is entirely on-topic. It front-loads the action and object, with no filler. Could earn a 5 if it referenced a sibling or workflow, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It tells the agent what the tool returns, but for a metadata-inspection tool, an agent might need to know whether it can be used before executing a capability or how errors are surfaced. Still, for a simple lookup tool, this is adequate.

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 schema already documents the 'capabilityIds' parameter. The description adds the purpose context ('full metadata and input schemas') but doesn't add format or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Return') and resource ('metadata and input schemas') for given capability IDs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_capabilities (which likely finds capabilities) and execute_capability (which runs them), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

The description implies usage: given capability IDs, retrieve metadata. The parameter description notes IDs come from search_capabilities, implicitly showing a workflow step. However, it doesn't state when to use this vs execute_capability or search_servers, leaving some inference needed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two genuine behaviors: the backing server is 'started on demand' (affecting latency/resource use) and arguments are 'forwarded verbatim' (no transformation). It does not mention output shape, error behavior, or potential side effects of the downstream capability, so coverage is partial.

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, each adding distinct information: the core action and two behavioral caveats. No redundant or filler wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The definition is largely sufficient for a simple pass-through invocation, and the arguments schema points to describe_capabilities for the input contract. However, there is no output schema or description of the return value/error behavior, so an agent does not know what to expect after invocation. This is a moderate gap given no annotations.

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 already documents both parameters completely (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'arguments are forwarded verbatim' reinforces the arguments parameter's semantics, but adds no new parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which already tells the agent to see describe_capabilities for the expected argument shape.

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 action – 'Execute a downstream MCP capability by ID' – with a clear verb and resource. The 'by ID' scoping and the 'downstream MCP' qualifier distinguish it from siblings like describe_capabilities and search_capabilities, which are informational rather than invocational.

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?

The description implies usage: you invoke this when you have a capability ID and want to run it, and the 'forwarded verbatim' phrasing indicates arguments should already conform to the target schema. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling names make the distinction clear. This is adequate context without explicit 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.

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is a search operation returning 'lightweight metadata only', which implies read-only behavior and no full payload or execution. However, it does not mention result shape, pagination behavior, indexing caveats, or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence carries the purpose, scope, search dimensions, and return nature with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the most important information appears first.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description is largely complete: the query semantics are enriched, the limit is documented in the schema, and the return type is characterized. The main remaining gap is the absence of an output schema or a more concrete list of returned metadata fields, but this does not prevent a capable agent from selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by expanding query to include tags, server id, and capability id as acceptable forms, which the schema's 'natural language or keyword query' line does not convey. The limit parameter remains fully covered by its schema description.

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 identifies the exact action ('Search'), the resource ('every indexed downstream MCP capability'), and the query dimensions (natural language, keywords, tags, server id, capability id), which clearly differentiates it from search_servers and the other sibling tools. It also specifies the return nature ('lightweight metadata only'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool is for.

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?

The scope phrasing implies when to use it—whenever you need to discover a capability across indexed downstream MCPs—but it never explicitly states when not to use it or points to describe_capabilities/execute_capability/search_servers. Sibling names hint at those alternatives, but the description itself provides no routing guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (ranking servers, not modifying them) and the scoping to configured downstream MCP servers. It doesn't cover details like ranking criteria, read-only guarantees, or response shape, but the disclosed behavior is accurate and non-contradictory.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage context is a single additional clause that earns its place.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is ranked, the query type, and when to use it. The main gap is the absence of any mention of the return value, which the absence of an output schema makes slightly more relevant.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the query parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces 'domain-level query' but adds no parameter format or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Rank'), a specific resource ('configured downstream MCP servers'), and a clear scope ('domain-level query'). It also positions itself against the capability-search siblings, so an agent can distinguish it from search_capabilities without opening the schema.

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?

Description gives explicit temporal guidance: use this before drilling into capability search. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative or list when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear enough given sibling names.

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