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

With annotations providing readOnlyHint, the description adds value by detailing the return payload, version pinning, and error conditions. This is exemplary transparency.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that cover purpose, constraints, and return value, all without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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 an output schema available, the description adequately covers the key aspects: what it returns, how parameters work, and error conditions. No gaps are apparent. The tool has low complexity (2 params, read-only), and the description is sufficient.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that generator_id should be a user-owned UUID (not system), and that version pinning affects the output. This extra context elevates it above baseline.

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 states the action ('Inspect'), the resource ('one image generator you own'), and the scope (its model and full config at head or pinned version). It distinguishes from system generators, which are not inspectable. This is specific and action-oriented.

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 description explains that system generators are not covered, and that ownership is required. It implicitly distinguishes from listing tools and generation tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_image_generators or generate_image. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this get operation.

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