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

The description explicitly includes the HTTP method GET, which signals a read-only lookup, and notes that it happens before funding or spending, implying no mutation is performed. However, with no annotations and no mention of response details, authentication, or side effects, the behavioral burden is only partially met.

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 compact sentence with the endpoint front-loaded and no filler. It efficiently communicates the operation, the returned information, and the usage context in one line.

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 one-parameter GET tool, the description gives a reasonable high-level picture of when to use it and what it returns. However, there is no output schema, and terms like 'routable DIEM' are unexplained, so an agent may lack enough context to interpret the response 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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter, max_price_cents, including its meaning and range. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline schema coverage 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 identifies a GET operation on /v1/capacity and states that it returns 'routable DIEM and price bands,' which conveys the tool's resource and purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like funding_instructions or set_max_price, but the verb and resource are enough to distinguish it.

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 phrase 'before funding or spend decisions' provides a clear contextual trigger for when this tool should be used. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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