Get per-network capabilities

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it warns that not every network supports every action and gives concrete examples of limitations. This goes beyond the structured flags and helps the agent avoid overpromising.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, uses concrete examples to clarify edge cases, and ends with a practical usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool, the description provides enough context about what the tool checks and why. It does not enumerate the exact return format, but the description's functional coverage is strong enough for an agent to call and interpret the result 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is vacuously complete. The description adds value by explaining what the returned capability information covers, which is sufficient for an agent invoking a no-argument tool.

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's function: it reports what each network can do (publish, private messages, comments, products, webhooks) plus a comment moderation matrix. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling getters like get_social_limits and get_publication_stats, even without naming 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 gives clear usage context: 'Check here before promising the user something.' This tells the agent when to consult the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the domain is specific enough that no obvious sibling would be confused with this capabilities lookup.

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