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 adds meaningful context beyond that: the returned data is a frozen snapshot rather than a live provider read, it includes a native review link and a stored readback receipt, and it carries no authority to mutate publication state. The remaining gap is that it never mentions what happens if the plan is stale or missing.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose leads before the authority disclaimer. The compression is aggressive enough that terms like 'original-key-bound' and 'readback receipt' require domain familiarity, slightly reducing immediate readability.

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 structure need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes the payload at a high level (plan, review link, receipt). Combined with the explicit authority boundaries, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only error/staleness behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the single plan_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its key/organization scoping. The description's 'original-key-bound' phrasing reinforces that scoping but adds no new constraint or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 pairs the verb 'Inspect' with a specific resource: the frozen image metadata plan, its native review link, and the stored operation/readback receipt. That is enough for an agent to separate it from webanto_get_asset (raw asset) and webanto_list_assets (enumeration). The phrasing is dense with internal jargon ('original-key-bound frozen') rather than plain language, which costs it a point.

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 second sentence carves out clear non-goals — no provider refresh, no publication, no generation, no image reuse — which implicitly tells the agent to look elsewhere for those actions. However, no sibling tool is named as the alternative for any of those excluded operations, so the routing is left to inference.

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