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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior beyond that: results are drawn from catalog metadata only (no geometry is computed), and the year parameter has a defined degradation path where a missing edition index is 'reported explicitly' rather than silently ignored. It loses a point for not covering invalid or unknown id handling.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the dual-mode capability is front-loaded before the return-content and year semantics. It is dense but every sentence carries information; the only friction is jargon-heavy phrasing that requires a second read.

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 structure need not be explained, and the description correctly spends its budget on mode selection, data provenance, and year selection behavior. What remains thin is the interaction between family_id and scope_id (mutually exclusive per the schema's oneOf) and any error conditions, though the structured schema covers the exclusivity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does handle 'year' well by defining its selection rule. The two identifier parameters are only indirectly explained through the 'one family across scopes or one scope across families' framing, leaving id format (e.g., whether a family_id is a code or an opaque key) and the exactly-one-of constraint unstated in prose.

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 names a concrete verb ('Inspect') and a concrete resource ('one published geometry family' / 'one scope'), and explicitly states that it reads catalog metadata rather than resolving geometry, which separates it from the resolve_* siblings. It stops short of a 5 because 'family' and 'scope' are domain terms never defined, so an agent unfamiliar with the catalog vocabulary must infer their meaning.

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?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: 'Returns coverage and known editions from catalog metadata only' signals this is a metadata-browsing call, not a geometry lookup, which implicitly routes away from resolve_bbox/resolve_point. However, no sibling is named as an alternative, and there is no statement of when an agent should prefer get_catalog or get_tool_help instead.

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