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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the shape of the payload (paths, methods, headers, payloads, match diagnostics), but says nothing about retention windows, ordering, permissions, or why include_injected defaults off beyond what the schema already explains.

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 zero filler; the scope is front-loaded before the return description. Every clause earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields, and the fully-covered input schema plus read-only annotation cover the rest. Minor gaps remain around filtering/ordering behavior and result volume, but nothing critical for a correct call.

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% – all four parameters (limit, workspace, status_filter, include_injected) carry their own descriptions with ranges and defaults. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('recent failed, 404/unmatched, or errored requests in a workspace'), enumerating the failure categories it covers. This is clearly separable from siblings like simulate_request, list_fault_rules, or list_endpoints.

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 trailing phrase 'to diagnose integration issues' implies the use case but never states when to choose this over simulate_request or list_fault_rules, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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