get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that the operation is free ('pricing catalogue read (free)'), a small but real addition beyond the annotations.

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 the return contents before the usage trigger. The trailing parenthetical is slightly awkward stylistically but carries the useful 'free' detail, so it 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly enumerates what comes back (capabilities, offerings, expert mechanics, pricing) so an agent knows what to expect. It is essentially complete for a free read; only the exact response shape remains unspecified.

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% — both 'topic' and 'userId' are documented in the schema, including the topic-reconnaissance behavior and the omit-to-get-overview default. The description does not add parameter detail, 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?

Specifies a concrete verb (Returns) and enumerates the exact resources covered: capabilities, offerings, Human Agent mechanics, expert recruitment/onboarding, and pricing. It clearly reads as the platform catalogue tool and is easy to distinguish from action-oriented siblings like find_expert or consult_analyst.

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?

Gives explicit invocation triggers ('Call this for any question about what Fodda can do, how experts work, what's available, or how much something costs'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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