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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description nonetheless adds substantive behavioral context by enumerating the return payload, including a credit impact figure and an acceptance hash — non-obvious details an agent would otherwise not anticipate. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the trigger condition, the second lists the return surface. No filler or restated title. It could be tightened slightly by naming the sibling tool, but 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the only real gap is the absent pointer to the generate-* counterpart for the pre-preview state.

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% for the single repository_id parameter, and the schema itself already warns against passing a Space ID, slug, provider URL, or repository-link ID. The description reinforces 'numeric repository_id' and ties the acceptance hash to it, but adds little beyond what the schema states, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb/resource pairing — inspecting an existing full-tree documentation preview — and enumerates exactly what it returns (repository details, tree titles, page counts, source-file counts, credit impact, acceptance hash). It is clearly a read counterpart to generate-full-tree-documentation, but it never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 opening clause gives a concrete trigger: 'when the user wants to inspect an existing full-tree documentation preview before creating a Space.' That is a real usage condition tied to a workflow step. However, it stops short of naming the alternative (generate-full-tree-documentation) or stating what to do if no preview exists yet.

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