list_capabilities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'No network call', meaning it is a static/near-zero-cost lookup that cannot fail on connectivity. It also surfaces two policy dimensions an agent would otherwise discover only by trial (live/keyless/free-COGS data policy, public-business-data-only legal scope). It does not state the response shape (prose vs. structured), which keeps it below a 5.

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 enumerated content, and the trailing 'No network call' is a high-value, low-cost addition. Nothing is repeated from the name or title and no sentence is 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema documentation tool, the description covers the essential scope: what content comes back, the data policy, the legal boundary, and that no network access occurs. The only gap is not indicating the form of the returned content (e.g., text vs. JSON), which matters slightly since there is no output schema to explain 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 and the schema confirms an empty object with additionalProperties false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are needed.

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 enumerates precisely what the tool returns: the enrichment record schema, the 8 ATS platforms, the data policy, and the legal scope. That is enough for an agent to see it is a metadata/documentation tool rather than a data lookup like its siblings (enrich_company, company_hiring_signal). It stops short of a single crisp 'returns API capability documentation' framing, so it is clear but not maximally sharp.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the sibling tools — no 'call this first to understand the schema before using enrich_company' guidance, and no exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the listed contents. The 'No network call' note hints it is a cheap discovery step but does not frame it as such.

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