search_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are short summaries, that this is the only discovery method, and that capability keys are not guessable. It implies a read-only search operation. It does not mention error handling or pagination, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. Every sentence adds essential information: what it does, how to use it, and the follow-up workflow. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description is complete for a search/discovery tool. It explains the critical usage context, the ordering of calls, and the nature of results, making the tool self-contained enough for an agent to execute 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains the 'query' parameter through 'keyword or natural language', but the 'limit' parameter is not addressed at all. The schema only shows a default of 10, leaving the agent to guess its meaning and effect.

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 states the tool searches the capability catalog by keyword or natural language. It distinguishes itself from siblings by indicating it returns short summaries and is the sole discovery mechanism for capability keys, setting up the workflow for get_capability_schema and execute_capability.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Always call this first' and explains that capability keys are not guessable and not listed elsewhere, making this the only entry point. It also tells the agent to call get_capability_schema before execute_capability, providing a clear when-to-use and sequence.

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