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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: required scopes (agent.inbox.read, agent.read), agent-scoped bearer key requirement with impersonation limits, sandbox-key restriction, absence of context_version, and an explicit statement that document text is untrusted data. It also enumerates operations this tool does NOT perform (image URLs, OCR trigger, retry, receipt, email, charge).

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 deprecation warning is correctly front-loaded, but the body is a dense run-on packing auth, scoping, sandbox, security, and non-feature caveats into a single block. Most sentences earn their place, but the lack of structure and repetition (denials, key substitution) costs readability.

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 explained. The description covers authentication, scopes, deprecation status, sibling routing, and security posture, leaving nothing material for an agent to guess before calling.

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 both UUID parameters are documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that request_id maps to the REST operationId and must not be a page or bundle ID.

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 core action is stated with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one exact completed facility capture and its saved page OCR through /v1/agent-inbox/:id/scans/:operationId.' It also names the sibling it is distinguished from (list_agent_inbox_scans) and its successor (get_inbound_pages). The deprecation notice and dense clause stacking bury the primary purpose somewhat, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Explicit routing is provided in every direction: use get_inbound_pages instead (deprecated), take request_id from list_agent_inbox_scans, use get_mailbox_md for full effective duties, and do NOT acknowledge these with report_agent_inbox_outcome. When/when-not and alternatives are all spelled out.

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