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

The description reinforces the read-only nature stated in annotations and adds useful context by mentioning that it returns credit impact, which is a potential cost consideration. No contradictions exist, and the additional detail is valuable given the annotation coverage.

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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys purpose, usage context, and return contents.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: when to use it, what it returns, and the fact that it is non-destructive. No critical information is missing.

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 schema description already fully documents the single parameter (repository_id) with clear guidance on what to pass and what not to pass. The tool description only repeats 'numeric repository_id' without adding extra meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: to inspect an existing full-tree documentation preview. It uses the specific verb 'inspect' and identifies the resource type. It also distinguishes itself from related tools like generate-full-tree-documentation by focusing on previewing rather than generating.

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 provides a 'when to use' condition: when the user wants to inspect an existing preview before creating a Space. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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