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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: this is a composite, multi-source inspection (evidence + questionnaire + team work) and that its readiness signal is explicitly NOT final document approval, which prevents misuse.

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, zero filler, with the scope of inspection front-loaded and the disambiguating caveat last. Every clause carries information.

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 no output schema, the description does describe what is returned at a high level (readiness, gaps, work) and clarifies the limits of the readiness signal. A single read-only parameter keeps the surface simple, so near-complete coverage is achievable in two sentences.

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% — the sole projectId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'never a local path' warning. The description adds nothing further about parameters, 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 specific verb ('Inspect') and enumerates the three things inspected: evidence readiness, questionnaire gaps, and team work for the dossier. It is concrete enough to separate from generic readers, though it never names a sibling tool it overlaps with (e.g. read_evidence_review, next_actions, read_requirement_coverage).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a pre-submission readiness check, and the caveat 'Readiness is not final document approval' scopes expectations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many read_* siblings.

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