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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly declares 'read-only' and 'pure read-only telemetry', which is a key behavioral trait. It also enumerates excluded functionality, but doesn't disclose potential aspects like data freshness or error behavior. Still, for a simple no-param read, this is adequate and exceeds minimal 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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Read-only capacity view') and then adds necessary exclusions. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff or redundancy. The spec reference adds authority without bulk.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It states purpose, safety profile (read-only), and scope (what it excludes). The only minor omission is a precise definition of 'capacity,' but the core usage context is fully covered.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but there is nothing to document. The schema is empty, and the description's scope statement is sufficient.

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 and resource: 'Read-only capacity view from the Capacity Listener fleet.' It also explicitly enumerates what the tool does NOT do ('NO bids, NO hedges, NO positions, NO derivatives'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_agents and verify_proof.

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 clear context about the tool's scope (pure read-only telemetry) and what it excludes, which implicitly signals when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions like 'use this when you need capacity data, not trading details.' The exclusions help but no direct when-to-use comparison is given.

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