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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: status is operational telemetry rather than a completeness guarantee, and live LPA portals can return sparse or unstable result sets.

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 uses clear labeled sections and is front-loaded with purpose, when-to-use, returns, limitations, and chaining. It is somewhat verbose, and the inaccurate 'takes no parameters' sentence weakens an otherwise well-structured definition.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description still usefully summarizes return fields, limitations, and chaining behavior. It is nearly complete for a read-only diagnostic tool, with the main gaps being the misleading parameter statement and lack of sibling differentiation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the optional site_ref parameter. But the description says 'this diagnostic tool takes no parameters,' which contradicts the schema's optional site_ref chaining parameter and could lead an agent to omit it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inspect Atlasly top-LPA planning source adapter coverage, status, cache, record counts, and geometry coverage. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the very similar sibling get_official_source_adapters.

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 'When to use' section gives a context for inspection of local-adapter registrations and operational state. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name or compare against get_official_source_adapters, which is likely the closest alternative.

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