Get per-network capabilities

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by explaining the variability across networks and the specific moderation actions covered. It does not describe pagination or response formatting, but that is minor for a capability matrix tool.

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 information-dense sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, gives concrete examples, and ends with a practical usage directive. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only capability lookup, the description is complete: it defines the scope, highlights cross-network differences, and explains why this tool should be consulted before promising user-facing features. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit list of capability categories and moderation actions.

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 no parameters, so the input schema carries no semantic burden. The description instead clarifies what the returned capability data will contain, which is the relevant semantic content for a zero-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 that the tool reports what each network can actually do, enumerating capabilities such as publish, private messages, comments, products, and webhooks, plus the comment moderation matrix. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_social_limits or list_accounts by focusing on per-network capability discovery rather than limits, accounts, or publication actions.

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 explicitly tells the agent to check this tool before promising capabilities to the user, and gives concrete examples of non-obvious network differences. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear for a zero-parameter read-only lookup.

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