Get a Capability and Its Limitation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: every capability is returned with its proving evidence and bounding limitation, and the tool cannot return one without the other. This is useful but does not describe not-found behavior or other edge cases.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating purpose and lookup modes. The second sentence adds a valuable invariant, though the dash clause 'this tool cannot return one without the other' slightly restates the preceding point rather than adding new information.

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 description is adequate for a simple read-only lookup: it identifies resource, lookup modes, and a key return invariant. However, with no output schema and one undocumented parameter (`limit`), it should clarify parameter interaction and behavior when no capability is found; it also does not offer guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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 67%; id and topic are documented in both schema and description, but the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The `limit` parameter is not explained semantically, and the description does not clarify whether id and topic are mutually exclusive or can be combined.

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 uses a specific verb 'Resolve' with a clear resource ('capability from the claims ledger') and names three supported lookup paths: claim id (C-nn), standing-limitation id (L-nn), or topic. It also distinguishes this from siblings like check_job and search_docs by emphasizing the claims-ledger domain and the evidence/limitation pairing.

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 clearly communicates when to use the tool by specifying lookup by id (C-nn), limitation id (L-nn), or topic. It implies topic is useful when the id is unknown, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like check_job or search_docs or provide 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.