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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by clarifying that inspection does not start work and by redirecting result retrieval to get_operation. It does not describe status values, error behavior, or pagination, so the added context is modest.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action stated first and the alternative routing second. Every clause earns its place.

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-value explanation is not required, and the alternative routing is helpful. However, for a tool whose schema descriptions are entirely absent, the description should explain the category enum and the relationship between the two required parameters; that gap leaves it only adequately complete.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It says nothing about what category means (job vs preparation vs call) or how activity_id relates to category, leaving an agent to guess at the enum semantics from names alone.

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?

"Inspect one activity record and its current status" names a specific verb and resource with an explicit single-record scope, which distinguishes it from a listing tool like list_activity. It also names one sibling, get_operation, for the completed-preparation case, though the differentiation is limited to that narrow scenario.

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 a clear usage condition (read-only inspection "without starting work") and an explicit alternative path: use get_operation when a preparation has completed and you want its result. It stops short of explaining when to pick this over list_activity or what to do when an activity is not found, so exclusions are partial rather than complete.

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