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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'this never writes access' largely restates structured data. The one genuinely additive trait is 'Unknown remains unresolved,' which tells the agent an unresolved state will not be mutated or resolved by inspection. It does not, however, explain what the receipt contains or what errors surface.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is slightly cryptic ('Unknown remains unresolved'), but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a three-required-param, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the action and one behavioral quirk but omits what a receipt actually returns and how unresolved selections present themselves. Adequate but with clear gaps the agent must discover empirically.

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 only 33%: projectId is documented, but selectionId and selectionRevision have no descriptions anywhere. The description's phrase 'stored library selection' loosely implies selectionId but says nothing about the 64-hex selectionRevision hash, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (the stored library selection's original access receipt), which clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like apply_dossier_library_access and prepare_dossier_library_access. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the other access-related siblings (read_dossier_access, retry_dossier_library_access), so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 reach for this tool rather than apply/prepare/retry/read_dossier_access, and no prerequisites or exclusions. 'Unknown remains unresolved' hints at semantics but is not usage guidance, leaving the agent to infer the selection condition.

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