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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: results come from catalog metadata only, the optional year resolves to the latest admitted edition no later than that year, and a missing edition index is reported explicitly rather than silently ignored.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded before the year-selection detail. The phrasing is jargon-dense but each sentence carries information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no further explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the operation and the year behavior adequately; the only real gap is not clarifying the family_id/scope_id distinction and their mutual 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 carries the burden for three parameters. It explains 'year' semantics well (latest admitted edition no later than the year, with explicit reporting when no index exists), but says nothing about the meaning of family_id vs scope_id or the oneOf exclusivity rule that requires exactly one of them.

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 specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('one published geometry family across scopes or one scope across families'), which distinguishes it from siblings like compare_geographies, get_shape, and get_data. It is clear what the tool returns, though the family-vs-scope duality is stated rather densely and its relationship to sibling tools is not explicitly contrasted.

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 'from catalog metadata only' implicitly signals this is a metadata lookup rather than a data/geometry fetch (vs get_data, get_shape), which gives an agent some routing signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative sibling, so usage must be inferred.

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