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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it discloses that output contains a user-facing summary plus assistant-facing dimensional detail (dimensions, code counts, sample code values with names, constraint type). It does not discuss pagination or limits on the sample output, but the return-shape disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then a concrete call example, then output contents, then the routing guidance. Three tight sentences, no filler, each earning 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and discharges it by enumerating what comes back for both user and assistant. Combined with the workflow routing, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The worked call example inspect(agency_id="ABS", dataflow_id="ERP_Q") reinforces usage syntax but largely duplicates the examples the schema already supplies, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a dataflow's dimensional structure and constraint codes'), and names the sibling it complements ('discover') vs the one it precedes ('ask'), so an agent can distinguish it from inspect_dataset or browse_dimension_codes.

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?

Explicitly sequences the workflow: use this to drill into a dataflow found via discover, before building a query with ask. Both the trigger and the alternative are named.

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