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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context beyond those flags: the tool returns exact versions, source references, and review history, and warns that retrieval candidates and historical versions are not approved current truth. 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?

Two sentences, both purposeful. The first front-loads the action and resource; the second provides a meaningful caveat. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only inspection tool with simple parameters and strong annotations, the description covers what data is returned and adds a key semantic warning. No output schema exists, but the description does not describe the response shape or how versions and references are represented, leaving a minor gap.

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 50%: projectId has a description, but claimId has only type and pattern constraints. The description does not compensate by explaining how claimId and projectId relate or how to obtain them for this specific read. An agent must infer claimId semantics from the tool name and context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and a clear resource ('existing governed business claim'), and enumerates what is inspected: exact versions, source references, and review history. The closing warning about retrieval candidates and historical versions distinguishes this read of approved truth from related creation, approval, or versioning tools.

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?

The description establishes clear context: this tool is for inspecting an existing governed claim, not for working with unapproved retrieval candidates or historical versions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like propose, approve, or retire, so it stops short of full when-not routing.

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