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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds meaningful authorization context: results are limited to inquiries from the current requests:write grant or a specific owner-approved credential. This scope restriction is valuable operational context not captured by annotations, though it does not cover pagination or return format.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the scope restriction is front-loaded. However, the phrasing is dense and convoluted ('the single inquiry explicitly covered by a separate owner-approved read-only follow-up credential'), reducing immediate clarity.

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?

As a list tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain the return structure and pagination mechanics. It provides authorization scope but omits how results are returned, how to page using limit/cursor, and what an inquiry record contains.

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 neither 'limit' nor 'cursor' is explained in the schema beyond type and bounds. The description does not mention pagination, the meaning of the cursor, or how limit affects results, failing to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 identifies the resource (inquiries) and constrains scope, but uses the unusual verb 'Recover' instead of clearly stating that it lists inquiries. It distinguishes against 'arbitrary owner history' but does not differentiate from the sibling evuun_get_service_inquiry, which retrieves a single inquiry.

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?

It gives an explicit exclusion ('No arbitrary owner history or merchant account access') and implies the tool is for inquiries created under the current grant. However, it never states when to choose this over evuun_get_service_inquiry or other list tools, leaving alternatives to inference.

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