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), so the description is not obligated to restate it. It adds genuine value by disclosing the semantics of the returned data — that retrieval candidates and historical versions are not approved current truth — which an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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, no filler. The core operation is stated first and the disambiguating caveat second, which is the right front-loading for an audit-style read tool.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive read with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and how to interpret the result. The only real omission is routing guidance against sibling read tools, which keeps it short of 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 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, claimId has only pattern/length constraints with no prose. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so it neither compensates for the gap nor goes beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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?

Specific verb ('inspect') plus resource ('existing governed business claim') and an enumeration of what the inspection surfaces (exact versions, source references, review history). This cleanly separates it from mutation siblings like propose_business_claim and retire_business_claim, though it never names an alternative read path such as business_claim_version.

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 use this tool versus the close siblings that also deal with claim state (business_claim_version, claim_contradictions, read_contribution_history). The second sentence is an interpretive warning about the data, not guidance on tool selection or preconditions.

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