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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a modest amount — that scope is limited to the authenticated organization — but stays silent on the notable behavior (the 50-evaluation cap, which only appears in the schema) and on what an "inspect" response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate compactness.

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 a rich output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100%-described parameters, much of the informational burden is already carried elsewhere. Still, a tool whose verb is "inspect" should explain what it returns or how it differs from `evaluations_list`; the definition leaves that hole for the agent to fill.

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 100% and the sole `projectKey` parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema, including the 50-evaluation cap and the omit-to-inspect-everything default. The description contributes nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ("Inspect") and two resources (evaluations and project keys) scoped to the authenticated organization, but "inspect" is a weak, ambiguous verb — it could mean list, snapshot, summarize, or validate. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling `evaluations_list`, leaving the agent to guess how the two overlap.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus `evaluations_list`, `project_plan`, or the `connections_*` family, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The only contextual cue is the word "authenticated," which hints at an auth requirement but does not guide tool selection.

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