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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description confirms the non-writing behavior, which is consistent with the annotations. However, 'Unknown remains unresolved' is ambiguous about what happens when the receipt is unknown (error vs. null return), and the description adds little behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, which is good. But the second sentence 'Unknown remains unresolved; this never writes access' is cryptic and wastes the opportunity to explain behavior clearly. The phrase adds confusion rather than value, so the conciseness is not well spent.

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?

This is an inspection tool with three required parameters and no output schema, so the description carries a heavy burden. It does not explain what the access receipt contains, what happens in unknown states, or the meaning of the parameters. The 'Unknown remains unresolved' clause leaves critical behavior unexplained, making the description incomplete for an agent to call this confidently.

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 low at 33% — only projectId has a description in the schema; selectionId and selectionRevision have none. The tool description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap. An agent is left to infer the meaning of selectionRevision's 64-char hex pattern from the schema alone, which is inadequate.

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 states a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('stored library selection's original access receipt'), making the primary purpose clear. It also differentiates from siblings by declaring 'this never writes access', which distinguishes it from apply_dossier_library_access and retry_dossier_library_access. However, the phrase 'Unknown remains unresolved' is cryptic and adds confusion rather than clarifying behavior.

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?

'This never writes access' provides implicit guidance that this is a read-only inspection tool, not the tool to apply or retry access. However, it never names alternatives explicitly, such as retry_dossier_library_access when access is failing, nor states when this tool should be preferred over other inspect/read siblings. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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