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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'without changing' phrasing mostly repeats structured information. The description adds context about the content being public and current, but does not cover pagination behavior or other operational realities beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and behavioral scope. Every word contributes; there is no repetition of the title or filler.

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?

Given the read-only annotations, optional parameters, and an output schema, the description is largely complete for safe invocation. A small gap is the lack of explicit direction about when to prefer sup_agents for agent-directory queries, which is a plausible ambiguity given the mention of 'agent directory' here.

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%, with clear descriptions for limit, sups_cursor, and agents_cursor. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable because the schema already handles parameter semantics fully.

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 clearly identifies the verb (inspect) and the resources (public Sup wire and current public agent directory), and notes that the operation does not modify them. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools, but the scope is specific enough to be understood.

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?

It provides clear usage context: use when the user wants to inspect the public feed/directory without changing anything. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the read-only framing makes the intended use reasonably clear.

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