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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description still adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that this operation does not enter the deck's scope — it is a pure inspection. This is a meaningful non-mutating behavioral signal beyond the annotation. It does not detail return format, but that is not a glaring gap for a read-only inspection 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative routing is compactly placed in the second sentence. Every piece 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?

The description is sufficient for a read-only inspection tool: it states what is inspected, clarifies that the tool does not enter scope, and points to the right alternative tools. The schema already covers all parameters, so the only minor gap is the lack of any indication of return shape, which is softened by 'stored definition or saved version' implying the returned content.

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 provides 100% coverage, documenting handle, deck_id, contract, and container_id with inline descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 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 identifies a specific action ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('a deck’s stored definition or saved version'), and a key constraint ('without entering it'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling load_deck and switch_deck tools by stating that those are for working in scope.

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 says when to use this tool: inspect without entering a deck. It also names the alternatives and the condition for selecting them: 'Use load_deck or switch_deck to work in its scope.' This leaves little to inference.

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