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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes a 'full breakdown,' which indicates a detailed record, but it does not explain what that breakdown contains or any other behavioral traits.

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 is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every part of it contributes to identifying the resource and its scope.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema, and 'full breakdown' is vague about what is returned, while the relationship to sibling tools such as inspect_keyword and list_keyword_inspections remains unexplained.

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 single parameter inspection_id is fully documented in the schema as 'Inspection id.' The description does not add any meaning, format guidance, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states that this tool fetches one stored keyword inspection with its detailed breakdown. It establishes a specific verb-resource relationship and singular scope, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_keyword_inspections or inspect_keyword.

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 phrase 'One stored inspection' implies retrieval by a known identifier, which gives some usage context. However, it does not state when to use this tool rather than list_keyword_inspections or inspect_keyword, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions.

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