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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safe, non-mutating behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context (only that it inspects an enabled curated tool), but doesn't clarify potential edge cases like whether mode affects output size or whether it can fail for disabled tools. This is adequate but not enriching.

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 one succinct sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not mention return values, error behavior, or examples. Given the ambiguity around parameters and the absence of a defined output, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional context.

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 provides types, required fields, an enum for mode, and a default, but the description offers no explanation of what 'service', 'tool', or 'mode' actually mean semantically. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.

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') and the object ('one enabled curated tool'), making the primary purpose understandable. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'inspect' entails (e.g., viewing schema, metadata) or differentiate it from sibling tools like find_capability or search_services, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention scenarios, prerequisites, or how it contrasts with search/find tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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