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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: 17-digit Synorb IDs must be passed as JSON strings, never numbers, and the tool sits upstream of Manifest retrieval. It doesn't say what happens if no ID is supplied, which for an all-optional parameter set matters.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is inspected, then the ID encoding gotcha, then usage routing. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus description cover safety and ID encoding. The remaining gap is behavior when all optional parameters are omitted, given zero required fields and no statement of a default.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a non-obvious serialization constraint: 17-digit IDs must be JSON strings and never numbers, which guards against precision loss that the schema alone (just type: string) doesn't motivate. It doesn't clarify whether stream_id and stream_ids are mutually exclusive or combinable.

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?

States a specific verb (Inspect) and a well-scoped resource set: Stream metadata, Surfaces, source channels, filters, volume. It explicitly contrasts with synorb-manifests, though it doesn't distinguish itself from synorb-catalog or synorb-stream-search, which are the tools that produce the IDs it consumes.

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?

Explicit 'USE THIS WHEN' clause names the precondition (you have stream_ids and need source/filter details before pulling Manifests) and a 'DO NOT USE THIS WHEN' clause with the named alternative (synorb-manifests for content/news). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that guides selection.

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