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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful cost signal "Free" and the ordering hint, but says nothing about return shape or the scope of what qualifies as a "current" capability. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a reasonable 3.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the ordering guidance is front-loaded before the cost note. Every element 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?

For a low-stakes read-only discovery tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and two entirely undocumented parameters, the agent has no idea what calling it with country/platform actually returns or filters. One more clause on the parameter effect would close the gap.

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 0%: the country (ISO-2 pattern) and platform parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. Words like "markets" and "selectors" hint at what is returned rather than explaining how country/platform narrow the results, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb (Inspect) and enumerates the specific resources returned: source operations, supported selectors, and markets. It is clearly a capability-discovery tool, distinct from the endpoint-calling siblings, though it never explicitly names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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?

"before requesting data" gives a usable ordering hint (call this first, then fetch), which implies the usage context. However, it lists no explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, so the agent must infer the relationship to call_endpoint/get_endpoint on its own.

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