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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'No authentication required' and the nature of the response content (pricing, duration, proof types), which helps the agent set expectations.

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: it states the purpose immediately, then gives usage variations and a workflow hint. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary details.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it returns, how to use the parameter, authentication requirement, and the next logical step. It is fully complete for the agent to invoke 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?

Schema already describes categoryId as an optional filter, but the description adds meaningful usage semantics: omitting it returns ALL capabilities and provides cross-reference to list_service_categories for valid IDs. This goes beyond the raw schema definition.

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 identifies the tool as listing detailed execution options (pricing, duration, proof types) for physical-world tasks, distinguishing it from siblings like list_service_categories and dispatch_physical_task. The verb 'list' and specific resource 'service capabilities' are concrete and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: omit categoryId to get all capabilities, pass categoryId (from list_service_categories) to filter, and use this before dispatching a task. It also names the next logical step (dispatch_physical_task), giving clear context on when and how to use the tool.

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