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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add some behavioral context: it discloses that search is approximate ('not exact') and that results are capped by a limit. However, it omits details like whether matches are case-insensitive, how results are ordered, or what a match object contains. This is moderately transparent but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the limit behavior follows naturally. Every word 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?

The description covers the input parameters’ roles and the result cap, which is enough for a basic call. But with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out the return structure (e.g., array of capability objects) and any safety/reversibility considerations. For a simple read-only search tool this is adequate, yet still leaves uncertainty.

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 for parameter meaning. It clarifies the `limit` parameter by stating 'Returns up to `limit` matches' and implies that `query` is the text searched across titles/summaries/tags. It does not, however, explain query syntax or matching rules beyond the intuitive meaning.

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 a specific verb ('search') and the resource ('capability titles / summaries / tags'), making the primary purpose evident. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_capability and list_recent_capabilities, though it does not explicitly name them. The qualifier 'Full-text-ish' adds useful nuance but slightly weakens precision.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling alternatives. It does not mention e.g. 'use this to find a capability by keyword, use list_recent_capabilities to browse newest ones.' An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description alone.

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