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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's genuinely additive facts are that the bank contains thirteen contracts, that triangulate_tracks is independently callable but excluded from this bank, and that all tools remain independently callable — useful scope boundaries, though no auth, rate-limit, or return-shape detail.

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 opening clause is front-loaded and the theme filter follows, which is good. But the trailing sentences about the scheduling family, approved selection_risk/route_risk chains, explicit adapters, and simulate_plan read as tangential domain chatter that a caller of a read-only listing tool does not need.

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 must convey what comes back; it does name the categories (contracts, themes, units, assumptions, backends, readiness) but does not describe the response shape, count, or ordering. For a small, single-parameter listing tool this is only minimally adequate.

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 0% for the lone theme parameter, but the description compensates partially by labeling it an "exact theme filter" and marking it optional, which conveys matching semantics the bare schema does not. It still gives no format, examples, or behavior on a non-matching theme, so it falls short of full compensation.

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 does state a verb ("Inspect") and a resource ("the thirteen native composition-bank tool contracts... themes, units, assumptions, execution backends and composition readiness"), so the general intent is legible. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_composition_capabilities, which appears to cover the same territory, and the enumerated scope is dense internal jargon rather than a plain statement of what a caller gets back.

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?

"Optional exact theme filter" is parameter detail, not usage guidance. The sentences about the scheduling family, risk chains, and simulate_plan describe the domain rather than telling the agent when this tool is the right choice versus list_composition_capabilities or compose_capabilities, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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