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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds material context beyond them: the required 'inspect:read' scope, the fact that the report is 'typed' and partitioned per-section across KV/D1/R2 stores, and the specific fields returned. It stops short of noting rate limits or access-failure behavior, but the auth requirement is a real 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the payload inventory and the auth requirement. The long section list is dense but every element earns its place by telling the agent what it can inspect.

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 correctly carries the burden of describing the return payload, enumerating sections down to session-log heads, and it states the required scope. The remaining gap is that it never clarifies the relationship to get_mission, so an agent with both tools in context must guess which to call.

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%, with the schema documenting issueId syntax (SHIP-199, WEB-42), orgSlug disambiguation, the sections filter, and projectId scoping. The description adds only the 'by its issue id' framing, which the schema already supplies, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the typed platform-inspection report for a mission, by its issue id') and enumerates the report's contents, so the agent knows this is a read of a diagnostic report keyed by issue id. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_mission, which fetches the mission itself, leaving the boundary implied rather than stated.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not, and the obvious alternative (get_mission) is never named. Usage is only implied by the content list — task state, retry reason, dispatch error, provenance — which signals a diagnostic/troubleshooting purpose an agent could infer.

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