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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds the L402 authorization requirement and the scope boundary that it does not mutate peers or topology, which is real context beyond the structured fields. No detail on rate limits or failure modes.

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 tight sentences: the metric list is front-loaded, followed by the auth/alternative/scope notes. No filler.

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 so return values need not be described, and the description covers the auth prerequisite, the sibling routing, and the non-mutating boundary. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema description already explains passing {} and that extra arguments are rejected; the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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?

Specific verb (Inspect) plus the exact resource and the enumerated metrics (peer counts, topology health, cross-validation rate, latency, quorum), which cleanly separates it from mesh.broadcast and the proof/stratigraphy siblings.

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?

Names an alternative (mesh.broadcast to distribute a snapshot) and states explicit exclusions ('does not administer peers or edit topology'), giving clear when-not guidance. The positive trigger for using this tool over alternatives is only implied rather than stated.

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