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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that the call is free, that it does not initiate a payment, and that there are two distinct pricing models (direct x402 per-call vs authenticated connector starter credits).

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 sentences, both earning their place, with the verb front-loaded before the content enumeration. The list of four content categories is dense but each item conveys distinct return content; nothing is redundant, though it reads as a laundry list rather than structured guidance.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations carry the behavioral profile. For a zero-parameter read-only metadata tool, the description covers purpose, content categories, cost model, and the no-payment boundary — nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 specific verb 'Inspect' is paired with a precise enumeration of the resource contents: direct x402 per-call prices, connector starter-credit costs, USDC settlement networks, and the account-plan contact path. This makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_market_data_endpoint or get_product_catalog, though the 'account-plan contact path' element slightly overlaps the concern of recommend_account_plan without resolving that relationship.

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 line 'it does not initiate payment' establishes one useful boundary condition, and 'free read-only metadata' signals low-cost invocation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus recommend_account_plan (a plausible alternative for plan/pricing questions), and no prerequisites are stated.

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