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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), the description discloses that no paid work or provider calls occur, that legacy representation can be refused by the reply budget, and that configuration/target preconditions are NOT verified by this call. That last caveat is valuable because it prevents the agent from mistaking a capability listing for a readiness check.

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?

Front-loads the payload in the first clause, then handles pagination and the legacy fallback in short declarative sentences. The closing caveat about unknown preconditions is slightly cryptic but still earns its place by scoping what the tool does not prove.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary; the description instead covers paging mechanics, size limits, the legacy refusal condition, and the absence of side effects or cost. Nothing critical to calling it correctly appears missing, though the notion of 'live authority' stays undefined.

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 already 100%, but the description adds a genuine operational instruction the schema does not: follow page.next_cursor until null, and page_size caps at 20. The paged_v2 vs legacy trade-off is largely restated from the schema, so the gain is modest rather than decisive.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Inspect) with an enumerated resource set (installed tools, granted scopes, live authority, limits, metering), so the agent knows exactly what information it retrieves. It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings such as webanto_get_usage or webanto_get_mcp_support, whose territory ('limits and metering') partially overlaps.

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?

Gives operational guidance about how to call it (first bounded page by default, follow page.next_cursor until null, legacy refused over budget) but never states when to prefer it over webanto_get_usage or webanto_get_context, nor what precondition triggers a need for it. Usage is implied by the payload enumeration rather than stated as a decision rule.

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